New Mexico historical review

reference
collection
book

Kansas city
public library
kansas city,
missouri

From the collection of the

7 n
m

Prejinger

v JUibrary
t P

San Francisco, California
2007

V \ .

11

^Mexico

Historical "Review

Palace of the Governors, Santa Fe

KANSAS CITY, MO.
PUBLIC LIBRARY

FEB 131961

January, 1961

Editors
FRANK D. REEVE PAUL A. F. WALTER

Associates

PERCY M. BALDWIN GEORGE P. HAMMOND

FRANCE V. SCHOLES ELEANOR B. ADAMS

BRUCE T.ELLIS

VOL. XXXVI JANUARY, 1961 No. 1

CONTENTS

Page
The Case of Major Isaac Lynde

A. F. H. Armstrong 1

Fort Union and the Santa Fe Trail

Robert M. Utley 36

Solomon Perry Sublette : Mountain Man of the Forties

John E. Sunder 49

Lew Wallace's Ben Hur

Jackson E. Towne 62

Book Reviews 70

Notes and Documents . 80

THE NEW MEXICO HISTORICAL REVIEW is published jointly by the
Historical Society of New Mexico and the University of New Mexico.
Subscription to the REVIEW is by membership in the Society open to all.
Dues, including subscription, $5.00 annually, in advance. Single num-
bers, except a few which have become scarce, are $1.00 each. For further
information regarding back files and other publications available, see
back cover.

Membership dues and other business communications should be ad-
dressed to the Historical Society of New Mexico, Box 1727, Santa Fe,
N. M. Manuscripts and editorial correspondence should be addressed
to Prof. Frank D. Reeve, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, N. M.

Entered as second-class matter at Santa Fe, New Mexico
PRINTED AT THE UNIVERSITY OF NEW MEXICO, ALBUQUERQUE

Editors
FRANK D. REEVE PAUL A. F. WALTER

Associates

PERCY M. BALDWIN GEORGE P. HAMMOND

FRANCE V. SCHOLES ELEANOR B. ADAMS

BRUCE T. ELLIS

VOLUME XXXVI
1961

PUBLISHED QUARTERLY BY THE

HISTORICAL SOCIETY OF NEW MEXICO

AND

THE UNIVERSITY OF NEW MEXICO

NEW MEXICO
HISTORICAL REVIEW

CONTENTS

Page
BER 1, JANUARY, 1961

The Case of Major Isaac Lynde

A. F. H. Armstrong 1

Fort Union and the Santa Fe Trail

Robert M.Utley 36

Solomon Perry Sublette : Mountain Man of the Forties

John E. Sunder 49

Lew Wallace's Ben Hur

Jackson E. Towne 62

Book Reviews 70

Notes and Documents 80

NUMBER 2, APRIL, 1961

A Ride from Geronimo, The Apache

Nellie Brown Powers 89

Pascual Orozco : Chihuahua Rebel

Paige W. Christiansen 97

British Investment and the American Mining Frontier,

1860-1914 . . ... . . Clark C. Spence 121

Frank Bond: Gentleman Sheepherder of Northern
New Mexico 1883-1915 (continued)

Frank H. Grubbs 138

Page

West of the Pecos (concluded)

E. L. Steve Stephens 159

Notes and Documents 175

Book Reviews 176

NUMBER 3, JULY, 1961

Edmund G. Ross as Governor of New Mexico Terri-
tory; A Reappraisal . . Howard R. Lamar 177

The Presidio Supply Problem of New Mexico in the

Eighteenth Century . . Max L. Moorhead 210

Frank Bond: Gentleman Sheepherder of Northern
New Mexico, 1883-1915 (continued)

Frank H. Grubbs 230

Book Reviews 244

NUMBER 4, OCTOBER,1961

Paul "Flying Eagle" Good Bear

LuellaThornburg 257

The Chouteau-Demun Expedition to New Mexico,

1815-17 George S. Ulibarri 263

Frank Bond: Gentleman Sheepherder of Northern
New Mexico, 1883-1915 (continued)

Frank H. Grubbs 274
Notes and Documents 346

Book Reviews 349

The Historical Society of New Mexico

Organized December 26, 1859

PAST PRESIDENTS
1859 COL. JOHN B. GRAYSON, U. S. A.
1861 MAJ. JAMES L. DONALDSON, U. S. A.
1863 HON. KIRBY BENEDICT

adjourned sine die, Sept. S3, 1883

re-established Dee. S7, 1880

1881 HON. WILLIAM G. RITCH
1883 HON. L. BRADFORD PRINCE
1923 HON. FRANK W. CLANCY

1925 COL. RALPH E. TWITCHELL

1926 PAUL A. F. WALTER

OFFICERS FOR 1959-60
President, CALVIN HORN, Albuquerque
Vice-President, ROBERT UTLEY, Santa Fe
Treasurer, THOMAS B. CATRON in, Santa Fe
Recording Secretary, WILLIAM S. WALLACE, Las Vegas
Corresponding Secretary, BRUCE T. ELLIS, Santa Fe

FELLOWS

PERCY M. BALDWIN J. LLOYD MECHAM

RALPH P. BIBBER THEODOSIUS MEYER, O.F.M.

HERBERT 0. BRAYER FRANK D. REEVE

FRAY ANGELICO CHAVEZ FRANCE V. SCHOLES

REV. STANLEY CROCCHIOLA ALFRED B. THOMAS

CHARLES E. DIBBLE THEODORE TREUTHLEIN

AURELIO M. ESPINOSA PAUL A. F. WALTER

GEORGE P. HAMMOND

VOL. XXXVI JANUARY, 1961 No. 1

THE CASE OF MAJOR ISAAC LYNDE
By A. F. H. ARMSTRONG

ON January 27, 1861, at San Augustine Springs, New
Mexico Territory, Major Isaac Lynde, 7th U.S. Infan-
try, surrendered his entire command to an inferior force of
Confederate troops led by Lieutenant-Colonel John R. Baylor,
Mounted Rifles, C.S.A.

Reports filed by both sides at the time agree that Lynde
surrendered to an inferior force. They agree on the date and
place. They disagree somewhat on the size and composition
of Lynde's command and the Confederate command. They
disagree widely on the causes for Lynde's surrender.

I propose to draw on all the material that contributes to
a picture of Major Lynde, his action and its causes, and to
arrange this into a cohesive whole, hoping the truth may
emerge more clearly than it has heretofore without such
correlation. My primary sources are the official military cor-
respondence related to Lynde's surrender, and papers con-
cerning him in the National Archives at Washington.
Secondary sources are the published narratives of two par-
ticipants, the published remarks of a civilian observer, and
contemporary accounts from a local newspaper. In working
toward a true perspective on Lynde's surrender, I shall
occasionally note, not as sources but merely for appraisal,
the remarks of various historians who have treated this
event briefly in a context of larger happenings, making use
of no primary material beyond that cited here.

The general military situation which reached a crisis in
the surrender at San Augustine Springs appears in the Army

2 NEW MEXICO HISTORICAL REVIEW

dispatches of the Department of New Mexico during the
early months of 1861.

Colonel E. R. S. Canby, 1 directing- the Department from
Santa Fe, faced a particularly difficult problem. His superiors
had begun to withdraw his regular troops for service in the
East, expecting him to replace these with volunteers re-
cruited by the territorial authorities. Many of his officers,
meanwhile, were resigning to join the Confederacy. Further,
he had information that forces for the invasion of his depart-
ment were assembling in Texas, and that their probable route
would be northward through the Mesilla Valley of the Rio
Grande, above El Paso.

Canby moved to meet this complex situation by pressing
New Mexico's governor in his slow recruiting of volunteers, 2
by alerting his own loyal officers to the consequence of dis-
loyalty among their former colleagues who either had not yet
openly resigned or, if they had, were still in the department,
and by reshuffling among the territory's scattered posts the
few units of regulars left to him.

Fort Fillmore, 3 forty miles north of El Paso and six miles
from the secessionist town of Mesilla, 4 figured as the pivot of
Canby's strategy against the invasion. This post controlled
the stage road along which U.S. detachments of regulars were
about to withdraw eastward from Arizona. Its position made
it the first objective for a Confederate advance into New
Mexico. Moreover, Fort Fillmore was the jumping-off place
for Canby's resigning officers: it was the last fort on their
most direct routes from all corners of the Department to
Confederate territory, and hence most subject to their under-

1. Edward Richard Sprigg Canby graduated from the U.S. Military academy in
1839, was brevetted to his captaincy after his Mexican War service, and was commis-
sioned Colonel of the 19th Infantry in May, 1861, taking over the command of the
Department of New Mexico after the resignation of Colonel William Wing Loring. Just
before the end of the Civil War he was raised to Major General. He was murdered by
Modoc Lndians near Van Bremmer's ranch, California, while attempting peace negotia-
tions in 1873.

2. Official Records of the War of the Rebellion (hereafter designated OR), series
I, V. 4, pp. 35-61.

8. Established Sept. 23, 1851, according to its first "Post Return" record in the
National Archives.

4. Then the largest town within the Gadsden Purchase, and site of its treaty's
signing in 1853. A stage depot on the Butterfield Overland Mail until it ended with
Texas' secession early in 1861.

MAJOR ISAAC LYNDE 3

mining efforts to win additional Union officers and enlisted
men for the Southern cause.

In mid- June, Canby ordered Major Isaac Lynde, 7th In-
fantry, to abandon Fort McLane, 5 and take over the command
of Fort Fillmore. He warned Lynde of the possible invasion
from Texas, of the disaffection of the Mesilla Valley's civilian
population, and of the suspected presence of rebel sympa-
thizers within Fort Fillmore itself. Canby placed all respon-
sibility for the Mesilla area with Lynde, including the
ultimate decisions to attack or ignore Fort Bliss at El Paso,
then held by the secessionist Texans, and to defend or aban-
don Fort Fillmore. Canby also delegated to Lynde the recruit-
ing of volunteers in the neighborhood. He pointed out Fort
Fillmore's value as cover for the troops pulling out of Ari-
zona. He made clear to Lynde that he had no intention of
drawing off regulars from Lynde's command. Instead, he
promised reinforcements, and some were actually put in
motion toward Fort Fillmore. 6

Lynde was given full freedom to act in any way he saw
fit, once he reached his new post. "Colonel Canby desires,"
wrote Canby 's aide, "that you will not consider yourself
trammeled by instructions, but will do whatever in your
judgment will best secure the interest of the United States
and maintain the honor of its flag, and he wishes you to feel
assured that you will be supported by every means in his
power." 7

A civilian observer has recorded conditions at Fort Fill-
more as he saw them just before Lynde's arrival and for a
short time thereafter. William Wallace Mills 8 had been a

6. Near the Santa Rita copper mines and the headwaters of the Mimbres River,
about 85 miles west-northwest of Fort Fillmore.

6. Anderson to Lynde, June 30, 1861. OR I, 4, p. 51, mentions reinforcements from
Fort Buchanan ordered to abandon that post and report to Lynde at Fort Fillmore.
A. L. Anderson, 2nd Lieutenant, 5th Infantry, as acting Assistant Adjutant General
in Santa Fe, personally transmitted many of Canby's instructions to commanders at
the different posts.

7. Anderson to Lynde, June 16, 1861. OR I, 4, p. 38.

8. The author of Forty Years at El Pason, 1858-1898: Chicago, Press of W. B.
Conkey Co., 1901 from which this account is taken. Mills wrote his book while United
States Consul at Chihuahua (from 1897 to 1907). He was 25 when he met Lynde at Fort
Fillmore. He quotes an extract from a letter Lynde wrote him in 1871, in which Lynde
said he remembered talking to Mills ten years before and telling Mills that he did not
then believe that "my junior officers would act toward me as they did." I have not been
able to locate this letter or anyone among Mills' descendants who might have it.

4 NEW MEXICO HISTORICAL REVIEW

clerk for nearly a year in the sutler's store at Fort Fillmore,
but had gotten another job in El Paso just before the war
started. Hearing neighborhood rumors that the fort might
be abandoned before Lynde got there, and more rumors of
disloyalty among the officers, Mills visited Fort Fillmore on
the 1st of July, three days before Lynde came.

Mills talked over the situation, or tried to, with the post's
surgeon, James Cooper McKee. The surgeon showed resent-
ment when Mills questioned the loyalty of various officers.
However, McKee's assistant, Dr. Alden, concurred with Mills'
suspicions, and gave him a note of warning about the dis-
quieting state of affairs at the fort, for Mills to take to Canby
in Santa Fe. Mills started north by stage.

A rider overtook the stage with a message from Mesilla
which said that secessionists planned to intercept it on a
desolate stretch known as the Jornada del Muerto, 9 to remove
Union sympathizers. But at Point of Rocks, the supposed
place of interception, Mills noted a detachment of U.S.
Mounted Rifles, under Lieutenant C. H. McNally, encamped
nearby. Their presence no doubt discouraged the raid that
had been planned on the coach.

When Mills reached Santa Fe and saw Canby, that officer
told Mills he was then in process of removing the current
commander of Fort Fillmore, Captain Lane, and had ordered
Lynde to take over. Canby gave Mills dispatches to take back
to Lynde. When Mills got back to Fort Fillmore, Lynde had
arrived there eleven days before.

The secessionist Mesilla Times had let the situation at the
fort be known to the whole valley. The entire neighborhood
knew of Lynde's expected appearance to the approximate
day. The Times reported planned troop movements to and
from the fort, and even the exact date when a dispatch for
reinforcements had been sent to another post, with the num-
ber of wagons sent to transport them. Secessionists in Mesilla
knew exactly how large a garrison was projected. They knew

9. A 90-mile stretch of desert, without wells in those days, but heavily travelled
since the time of the Conquistadores. It was a short cut, leaving the Rio Grande about
20 miles north of Fort Fillmore, to meet it again near Fort Craig. Despite its dangers
from Indians and thirst, travellers preferred it, rather than follow the river, which
curved widely and made a much longer route.

MAJOR ISAAC LYNDE 5

the probable state of the enlisted men's morale and their pay-
roll troubles. The Times told of a rifle company refusing to be
paid twelve months' arrears in drafts, holding out for cash.
Morale must have dropped even lower when the men read
that Union troops at another fort not far away had been paid
in full the week before. 10

Major Lynde reached Fort Fillmore in the first week of
July. He found the cavalry section nearly dismounted, for
local secessionists had run off with most of the horses. He
acknowledged dispatches from Canby naming specific officers
to suspect and watch on their way through Fort Fillmore to
Texas, but said he had no cause to question the sympathies
of the personnel then stationed at the post. He told Canby
how poorly he thought the fort was situated for defense, and
that it was not worth the exertion to hold it ; yet he saw little
reason to expect an attack since he felt he now had enough
troops to intimidate the Texans, despite his pessimism about
being able to raise local volunteers. 11 It is probably fair to say
that Lynde's messages to Canby during the first three weeks
of July show an inadequate estimate of the danger, and a
divided mind on nearly every issue.

Lynde's situation was complicated further by Apache
raids on his livestock. The Mesilla Times of July 20th reported
that Apaches attacked the hay camp at Fort Fillmore on July
17th, taking a boy prisoner and driving off mules ; and that
the next day they passed within a half mile of the fort, crossed
the Rio Grande near Santo Tomas, a village just south of
Mesilla and five miles from Lynde and his troops, to run off
two thousand sheep and kill two herders. A company of
infantry pursued the Apaches to the foothills, ". . . and re-
turned without losing a man !" 12

When Mills got back to Fort Fillmore with Canby's dis-
patches to Lynde, Captain Lane, the former commander, was
still there. He accused Mills of carrying false tales to Canby.
Captain Garland, for whom Lynde had vouched to Canby, ran

10. Mesilla Times, June 30, 1861. All Times reports, unless otherwise noted, are to
be found in the so-called Hayes Scrap collection, Bancroft Library, University of Cali-
fornia at Berkeley.

11. Lynde to Canby, July 7, 1861. OR I, 4.

12. N.Y. Times of August 8, 1861, reprinting Mesilla Times report of July 20, 1861.

6 NEW MEXICO HISTORICAL REVIEW

off that same night to the rebels at Fort Bliss. Mills suspected
that copies of the dispatches he had just delivered went
with Garland.

Lynde called in his aide, Lieutenant Brooks, and let him
read the dispatches. Mills says that Brooks showed little
desire to shed blood for his country. Canby's orders to Lynde,
according to Mills, were to take Fort Bliss and the stores
there, and this Mills believed would have been easy. No such
order, however, exists in Canby's recorded correspondence.

Mills says Lynde told him of the feeling against Mills
among the Fort Fillmore staff, and of his opinion that Mills
had acted unwisely to report his suspicions to Canby, even
while Lynde confessed that some of his officers were of South-
ern sympathy. Mills then told Lynde that "treachery and
ruin" were all around him. Lynde asked Mills to ascertain the
size of the Confederate invading force, which Mills sub-
sequently did, sending an outline of the exact strength
opposing Lynde. Mills says Lynde "did not move" on this
knowledge.

As will be shown further, Lynde seems to have been in
the habit of inviting opinions and ideas not only from civil-
ians, but from members of his command supposedly less
qualified than he to plan his operations.

It is a question whether Isaac Lynde's career up to this
time had fitted him for the high responsibility he now carried.
While his father, Cornelius Lynde, had been looked upon as a
military man in the small Vermont village of Williamstown,
this reputation came from only a year of service ending in
1800. There is no record of Isaac's progress from his birth
about 1805 to his recommendation by neighbors, in 1822,
for appointment to the U.S. Military Academy. They de-
scribed him as "an intelligent, sprightly lad," handsome, and
well educated. 13 He entered the Academy in July of 1823, and
graduated four years later, thirty-second in a class of thirty-
eight. He was sent immediately to a long succession of fron-
tier posts, at first in the Old Northwest, later on the far plains

13. EUjah Paine and Dudley Chace to Sec'y of War, November 13, 1822. From
Lynde's "Appointments, Commissions and Personal" file (L736-ACP-1866), in the
National Archives.

MAJOR ISAAC LYNDE 7

and deserts. He rose by routine promotions through only
three full grades in thirty-four years. Although he served in
the Mexican War, his record includes no battles or distinction
of any kind. 14 As the posts of the Army moved west in the
country's expansion, his place in the infantry gave him little
chance for noteworthy action. Foot soldiers served as fixed
garrisons, mainly, while the cavalry performed as the active
arm. Perhaps Lynde lacked the experience or enough train-
ing in decision that events were soon to demand. His prepa-
rations for defense, recorded in his messages to Canby, show
too little comprehension of his tactical problems at Fort Fill-
more, or of the temper of his command and the civilian com-
munity around him.

We know that in the weeks before his disastrous sur-
render he was under many pressures. One came from the
disloyalty of colleagues on their way through to Texas, plus
the disloyalty among his immediate command. Other kinds of
pressure came from the Apaches, from the secessionist civil-
ians, and from the enemy gathering at El Paso. Add to these
a lack of sufficient equipment, especially in mounts for his
cavalry section; the grumbling among unpaid units of his
troops ; the fort's women and children whom he was reluctant
to send away, weakly escorted, through hostile and waterless
desert. These pressures and his poor means of communication
with his superiors together might have worn down a leader
bigger than Lynde.

In this situation arose an overbearing personality in the
shape of McKee, the post surgeon officious, presumptuous,
eternally right.

James Cooper McKee 15 had been stationed once before at
Fort Fillmore, and knew many inhabitants of the area. He

14. Cullum, Maj. Gen. George W., Biographical Register of the officers and graduates
of the U.S. Military Academy: N.Y., D. Van Nostrand, 1868. Nearly every officer of
Lynde's acquaintance, whether an Academy graduate or not, had received recognition
for Mexican War service. Many had wounds in addition to their decorations and promo-
tions. Colonel W. W. Loring had lost an arm in Mexico. Lynde's fellow West Pointers
and many enlisted superiors and subordinates would seem to have experienced more
action than he, and thereby could have been influenced somewhat in their attitudes
toward him.

15. According to Francis B. Heitman's Historical Register and Dictionary of the
U.S. Army (Gov't Printing Office, Wash., D.C. 1903), Post Surgeon McKee came from
Pennsylvania and was appointed Assistant Surgeon in 1858. On parole after Lynde's

8 NEW MEXICO HISTORICAL REVIEW

had returned under orders after Lynde took over the com-
mand. Immediately upon his arrival, McKee says, 16 he sensed
a coolness among old friends in Mesilla who had become
secessionists.

McKee alone reports on Lynde's appearance: gray hair
and beard, venerable, quiet, reticent, retiring, giving ". . . an
impression of wisdom and knowledge of his profession."

After a short time McKee came to doubt the Major's effi-
ciency and bravery. "I sadly saw no effort to put the command
in fighting trim ... no measures taken . . . against surprise."

He warned Lynde of the hampering effect of so many
wives and children, probably a hundred persons altogether,
but he saw no attempt by Lynde to get them out of the way to
a safer place. He believed Lynde to be a man treacherous to
the Union cause, deliberately exposing Fort Fillmore to cap-
ture through neglect of the sensible preparations any loyal
commander would have made in those circumstances.

In telling of Lynde's actions and his own, McKee reveals
an arrogance, and an eagerness to pre-empt the functions of
others, that could well have been highly irritating to the
Major. Although a medical man, he took it upon himself to
organize various aspects of the defense, not only by drilling
troops not assigned to him, but by tagging along with Lynde
on rides over the surrounding terrain, to point out the best
disposal of the troops at various points. One day he got Lynde
to go with him in his buggy to Mesilla, and there he indi-
cated what he judged the best store-rooms and houses for
troops to occupy if the town were taken.

The reader of McKee's narrative begins to marvel at
Lynde's endurance of so much meddling from one unschooled
in military strategy and tactics, whose manner may too well
have resembled his writing style. A tone of ponderous satire

surrender, he was for a time sent to Camp Butler, Illinois, where he took charge of a
hospital for sick and wounded Confederate prisoners of war. His reports from there
(OR II, 8, p. 647 ff.) indicate a marked concern for the prisoners' welfare. After parole,
he served in the war, to be promoted to Major Surgeon in December, 1864, and brevetted
to Lieutenant Colonel in 1865 for faithful and meritorious service. In 1887, he became
a Lieutenant Colonel Surgeon. He retired in June, 1891, and died in December, 1897.
16. Unless otherwise indicated, the McKee material comes from his Narrative of the
surrender of a command of U.S. forces at Fort Fillmore, N.M. in July, A.D., 1861 : John
A. Lowell Co., Boston, 1886, 3rd edition.

MAJOR ISAAC LYNDE 9

resounds in McKee's remarks. He is far from dispassionate,
seemingly intent on erasing Lynde as a human being.

This is the man who became angry with Mills, whom Mc-
Kee saw as a busybody stirring up the affairs of the fort. His
failure to see himself in this role shows a convenient obtuse-
ness. It is interesting that his anger arose over the question of
loyalty among the officers. McKee is the sort of man who
insists on his own wisdom so sharply that when he is wrong
he is hopelessly wrong, committed to a fallacy forever. His
denial that disloyalty existed goes against the facts which
even Canby detected, analyzing reports three hundred miles
away in Santa Fe. 17

At the moment when Lynde's problems had reached their
most tangled complication, his formal enemy, but by no means
his worst, at last appeared.

On the night of July 24th, a body of Confederate troops
under Lieutenant-Colonel John R. Baylor camped within six
hundred yards of Fort Fillmore, intending to attack at day-
light. A deserting rebel picket warned Lynde and spoiled
the plan. 18 On the following morning, Baylor moved across
the Rio Grande to take the village of Santo Tomas. There he
captured supplies and stragglers from a detail Lynde had sent
a week previously to guard the road from El Paso to Mesilla.
Then Baylor went north to Mesilla and billeted his command.

Lynde seems to have had full information on Baylor's ap-
proach. He reports 19 that the deserting picket estimated the
Confederates at three to four hundred. Lynde says he ordered
the two outposted companies to return from Santo Tomas and
kept his troops under arms until daylight, the night of the
Confederates' proximity. It is apparent that he decided that

17. Knowledge of the danger had spread widely in the Department. Colonel Ben-
jamin S. Roberts, commander at Fort Stanton in 1861, and Lynde's successor in charge
of the southern New Mexico military district after Lynde's surrender, testified a year
later to the damage done by "deserting" officers. He referred particularly to Fort Fill-
more, saying it served as a rendezvous for such officers, that they tried "mightily" to get
Lynde's command to desert, and that they so demoralized the Fort Fillmore troops that
Lynde's surrender "was directly consequent upon that state of demoralization, as he had
no confidence that his men would fight." (Roberts' testimony before the Committee on
the Conduct of the War, 37th Congress, 3rd Session, Senate Reports 4, p. 366 ) .

18. Mentioned by Lynde and Baylor in OR I, 4 ; Hank Smith in his Memoirs (full
citation hereafter) ; the Mesilla Times, August 3, 1861.

19. Lynde to Anderson, July 26, 1861. OR I, 4, p. 4.

10 NEW MEXICO HISTORICAL REVIEW

Baylor must be driven from Mesilla, for he took immediate
action when Baylor reached it.

Leaving one company of infantry and the band to hold the
fort, he set his troops in motion, shortly before noon on July
25th, to cross the intervening bottom land and river, toward
the village six miles away. His attacking force was three
hundred and eighty men. One of his infantry companies
served as artillery, manning the howitzers. According to
Lynde's estimate, the Confederates, augmented by belligerent
citizens of Mesilla, numbered nearly six hundred men. 20

Two miles from the town, Lynde sent his aide, Lieutenant
Brooks 21 , forward with a white flag, demanding surrender.
Brooks was met by Major Waller, Baylor's second in com-
mand, and a Confederate colonel whose last name was Her-
bert. They said that if Lynde wanted Mesilla, he was to come
and get it. Lynde then moved his howitzers forward and had
them fire shells at long range. The shells burst short in the
air. The command moved slowly toward the houses. Men
hauled and pushed the howitzers through heavy sand. 22 From
a cornfield and house on the Union right, a heavy musket fire
raked Lynde's troops, killing three men, wounding two offi-
cers and four men. Because the night was coming on, says
Lynde, and because his howitzers were useless due to the
sand, he withdrew across the river and returned to the fort.

Such was the whole extent of Lynde's attack on Baylor.
He crossed a shallow river with three hundred and eighty
men, advanced six miles, fired two howitzer shells, received
one volley from the rebel muskets, and thereupon withdrew.

What happened to Lynde at Mesilla? Some have insisted
he turned tail through cowardice. Others have called it

20. Mesilla Times, August 3, 1861, estimates Baylor's force at 253 effectives, plus
"... a number of the citizens of Mesilla and El Paso . . .", bringing the total to "about
300 men."

21. Lynde does not mention McKee here in the official report (OR I, 4, p. 4),
although McKee in his statement (ibid., p. 12), says he accompanied Brooks. In his
Narrative, McKee says Lynde asked him to go with Brooks because he knew many of
the townspeople.

22. Ordinarily, 12-pound howitzers were serviced both in order of march and in
battery by six men and three mules (Viele, Egbert L., Handbook for active service:
N.Y., D. Van Nostrand, 1861). Mules at the fort may have been stolen, with the horses,
a month previously as reported in the Mesilla Times, June 30, 1861.

MAJOR ISAAC LYNDE 11

treachery. Lynde himself shortly after reported it as strategy,
dictated by the oncoming dark and the useless guns.

Canby was to offer, twelve months later, what might well
be the most reasonable explanation, different from all others.
But by the time Canby spoke, Lynde's action and the possible
motives for it were blurred and lost, possibly forever, in the
roar of less rational voices than Canby's, and in the thunder
of an accelerated, bigger war. Lynde would add more reasons
when appealing for justice a few month hence, but mean-
while his official statement written the following day was
bare to the point of reticence. Others, however, saw, or
thought they saw, more in the skirmish than did Lynde at
least more than he then put on paper. Their reports indicate
a knottier tactical problem than Lynde outlined to Canby.
The Mesilla Times, nine days after the skirmish, paints the
richest picture of all:

About 5 o'clock the clouds of dust indicated the enemy were
advancing for an attack towards the Southern part of the city.
The whole force was moved to that point and every precaution
made to give them the warmest of receptions. Several of the
principal streets of Mesilla converge at the Southern end of the
town, the houses forming an angle and are quite scattered, old
corrals and the proximity of the cornfields make the position a
very advantageous one for defense. The companies were sta-
tioned on the tops of the adobe houses and behind the corrals.
Capt. Coopwoods company was mounted. The citizens posted
themselves on the tops of the houses on the principal streets,
prepared to render their assistance. 23

At that time, Mesilla's "citizens," if the Times means able-
bodied men, would probably have numbered six or seven hun-
dred, since the "city" had a total population of a little over
two thousand men, women and children. The "principal
streets" were and still are dirt roads. Mesilla was the
rawest kind of frontier village. Hence, there must have been
a disproportionate number of unattached males, and even the
seven hundred count could be low.

The Times continues :

The enemy advanced to within 500 yards of our position
and halted and formed the line of battle with two howitzers in

23. Mesilla Times, August 3, 1861.

12 NEW MEXICO HISTORICAL REVIEW

the centre and the infantry and on the wings the cavalry, the
whole force appearing to be about 500 men. A flag of truce was
then sent to our position with the modest demand to surrender
the town unconditionally, the reply was 'that if they wished the
town to come and take it.' They unmasked their guns, and com-
menced firing bombs and grape into a town crowded with
women and children, without having in accordance with an
invariable rule of civilized warfare given notice to remove the
women and children to a place of safety.

This exact language will be heard again, in the narrative
McKee published seventeen years later. The town had five
hours to dispose the noncombatants from the time Lynde was
observed crossing the river. The watchers must have dis-
covered his howitzers enroute. They must have guessed his
intentions. Their own neglect of precautions for the safety
of the women and children presents a riddle.

The Times goes on to describe the Union cavalry charge,
its repulse by Confederate musket fire, and the killing of four
troopers and the wounding of four, causing a retreat in
confusion.

". . . The order was given to charge four times to no
purpose . . ."

Then, according to the Times, the Texans performed an
ancient trick :

Capt. Coopwoods company had been continually employed
in deploying among the houses and corrals, first appearing
mounted and then on foot, and appearing in many different
positions . . . succeeded in greatly deceiving the enemy as to
our real force . . .

Perhaps the most striking feature of the Times' account is
its openly partisan tone. The reporter speaks as if formally
sworn to the military oath of the Confederacy.

McKee's first version of the Mesilla skirmish is included
in a report to the Surgeon General dated three weeks after
the event. 24 He says that when Lynde's force moved forward,
the cavalry was in front, the artillery in the road. The howit-
zers fired into an enemy group on the right and scattered it.

24. OR I, 4. p. 11.

MAJOR ISAAC LYNDE 13

When the Confederate muskets answered, Private Lane of
the Mounted Rifles and two men in Lieutenant Crilly's cavalry
unit were killed. Lieutenant McNally of the Rifles was
wounded. McKee says Lynde told him to prepare the wounded
for retreat.

He embellished this brief account seventeen years after
the incident from notes and memoranda he claims to have
made at Fort Fillmore in those days. After telling of Lynde's
demand for Mesilla's surrender, and Baylor's refusal, McKee
says he offered to care for the Confederates soon to be
wounded. This offer was rejected "abruptly." Less patient
with him than Lynde, the Confederate officers were telling
McKee, in effect, to mind his own business. They had their
own surgeons, they said.

McKee's narrative agrees in substance with the Mesilla
Times, in telling of Lynde's strange disposal of his force :

... he ordered Lieut. McNally 25 to deploy his column
mounted in front of the infantry . . . conspicuous targets for
the Texans lying . . . concealed in the adobe house . . . Lieut.
McNally was shot through the apex of one of his lungs, four
men killed and several wounded . . . [the cavalry] at this sur-
prise retreated behind the infantry . . .

Here McKee repeats the language of the Times account
almost verbatim :

. . . Lieut. Crilly 26 was ordered to fire shells into the town
full of women and children ; indeed, I heard Lynde order Crilly
to fire a shell at a group of women, children, and unarmed men,

25. Christopher Hely McNally, born in England, came to the United States some
time before December, 1848, at which time he became a sergeant in the Mounted Rifles.
He is mentioned in General Orders No. 22, of 1858 (Senate Documents, 35th Congress,
2nd Session, Report of the Sec'y of War, p. 20) where he is reported to have taken part,
as a 2nd Lieutenant, in a battle against the Mogollon Indians in the Gila River area, May
24, 1857. For his action at Mesilla, he was later brevetted to a captaincy. He served
through the Civil War, after he recovered from his Mesilla wound and had been exchanged
out of parole, and was raised to a major's rank in November, 1865, for meritorious
service. Except for the date of his death in 1889, Heitman lists nothing further on him.

26. Francis J. Crilly, 2nd Lieutenant, 7th Infantry, was only two years out of
West Point at this time. 1st Lieutenant Cressy, Mounted Rifles, another of Lynde's officers,
had graduated the year before Crilly. Their classes contained less than thirty members
each, so they must have known each other well at the Academy. Crilly was exchanged
from parole and went back into the war the following year. At its close he was brevetted
to Major and Lieutenant Colonel, served five more years and resigned from the Army
in 1869.

14 NEW MEXICO HISTORICAL REVIEW

on one of the sand-hills to our left front; a shell was so fired;
luckily it fell short, and no harm was done. The frightened
crowd dispersed rapidly. So, without having, in accordance
with the humane rule of civilized warfare, given notice to re-
move the women and children to a place of safety, shells were
thrown into different parts of the town, fortunately injuring
no one . . , 27

It seems quite certain that McKee relied on the old news-
paper to augment his "notes and memoranda taken at Fort
Fillmore." If he did, one wonders how he got a copy of an
issue dated nine days after the incident when he was far away
from the area or a copy seventeen years old when he sat
down to write his Narrative.

At Lynde's order, McKee, apparently snorting like a war
horse, departed from the field of withheld glory. He put the
dead and wounded into his ambulance "reluctantly." Then he
placed McNally on a litter and started for the river with the
column.

McNally turned in his report of the action. It was included
among the depositions sent by Canby in September to the
Adjutant General's Office. It strengthens a conviction one gets
from various remarks by McKee, that McNally and McKee
were close friends. Before describing the attack on Mesilla,
McNally tells how he and the surgeon "... insisted upon
Lynde's sending away the women and children, 103 in num-
ber from the fort. He had an opportunity to send them away,
but refused. After this [McNally and McKee] insisted upon
his occupying Mesilla . . ." Either Lynde first appeared to
this pair as putty, later disappointing them with his resist-
ance to their meddling (which on McNally's part, at least,
sounds like insubordination), or he invited their opinions
out of weakness. One cannot be sure.

Later, McNally recounts, in the third person as was re-
quired for such a statement, that twice he induced Lynde to
order the rebel flag hauled down in Mesilla.

. . . twice he gave the order ; twice McNally was saddled
up [to go to the town and haul down the flag] and twice he re-
scinded it. The second time his adjutant, Mr. Brooks, (who had

27. Narrative, p. 16.

MAJOR ISAAC LYNDE 15

previously resigned,) 28 came to McNally and told him that he
had prevented his going to Mesilla, as he thought it best not to
bring on a collision with the Texans. The first time he would
have gone, but he (Brooks) prevented it. 29

The day after the rebel picket warned the fort, McNally's
detachment scouted the valley, to keep track of Baylor's
movements. Even this small mission felt the presence of
Surgeon McKee. The doctor now had assumed a new duty
as the eyes of the fort, in addition to organizing its garrison
and planning its defense.

In describing the skirmish at Mesilla, McNally records
confusion in several new aspects:

. . . [Lynde] ordered McNally to form and go ahead . . .
got within 60 or 70 yards . . . Halted, and reported in person
that they were there in the jacals and corn fields . . . McNally
dismounted and fired at random. They fired another volley. Re-
mounted, not being supported. Sent to Major Lynde, who
could not be found, and not being supported by infantry or
artillery, ordered his men to retreat. In retreating, the Seventh
Infantry fired into us . . , 29

Baylor's report, written two months later, says that the
Union horsemen ". . . retreated hastily, running over the
infantry ..." In a few moments he saw Lynde's command
marching back to Fort Fillmore :

. . . but supposing it to be a feint, intended to draw me from my
position, I did not pursue them, but kept my position until
next morning, the 26th, expecting that they would attack us
under cover of night.

The enemy not appearing, I sent my spies to reconnoiter,
and discover, if possible, their movements. The spies reported
the enemy at work at the fort making breastworks ... I sent
an express to Fort Bliss, ordering up the artillery . . . 30

In Lynde's report to Canby, dated the day following his
action at Mesilla, he says he is ". . . hourly expecting attack,"

28. This is the only reference to Brooks' resignation in any of the statements and
reports, although Heitman lists his resignation as dated May 16, 1861. No explanation
of his subsequent presence in Lynde's command has come to light.

29. OR I, 4, p. 14.

80. Baylor to T. A. Washington, September 21, 1861. OR I, 4, pp. 17-20.

16 NEW MEXICO HISTORICAL REVIEW

and tells of spending the day fortifying the fort with sand-
bags. 31

His tardiness in this procedure is cause for wonder. Fort
Fillmore's plan was peculiarly innocent of the basic pro-
visions for defense, standing as it did like a square-bottomed
U, its open end facing the river and the road from El Paso.
It stood at the edge of a most inviting sweep of level land
for attacking cavalry. As Lynde had reported on arrival, the
fort was not in position to withstand a siege :

... It is placed in a basin, surrounded by sand hills . . .
and they are covered by a dense growth of chaparral. These
sand hills completely command the post, and render it inde-
fensible against a force supplied with artillery. A force of a
thousand men could approach within 500 yards under perfect
cover . . .

Now, in the skirmish report, Lynde tells Canby that he is
sending an express to a Captain Gibbs, apparently on his way
from Fort Craig southward toward Fort Fillmore with a
cavalry detachment, telling Gibbs to turn and go back. Lynde
adds that orders will go out to the troops coming in from
Arizona, alerting them to the dangerous situation at Fort
Fillmore, and directing them to turn short of the post and
proceed by the nearest route northward to Fort Craig.

The tone throughout this report is that of a man who has
made an orderly withdrawal to a position which, although it
had not previously been prepared, can now effectively be de-
fended. He does not say that he is thinking of abandoning the
fort, or that he has decided to abandon it, or that he is in the
process of doing so. He is building up its defenses while he
awaits an attack by Baylor.

It must have shocked Canby, therefore, when he opened
Lynde's next dispatch, dated August 7th, not from Fort Fill-
more, but from Fort Craig :

Sir : On the 26th of July I had the honor to report the fact
of an unsuccessful attempt to dislodge the Texan troops from
the town of Mesilla, since which events of the greatest conse-
quence to my command have occurred. They are now prisoners
of war . . , 32

81. Lynde to Canby, July 7, 1861. OR I, 4, p. 4.

32. Lynde to Anderson, August 7, 1861. OR I, 4, pp. 5-6.

MAJOR ISAAC LYNDE 17

The day of his sandbag message, Lynde had heard that
the enemy would get artillery during the night. If he went to
intercept it, Baylor could have attacked the fort in his ab-
sence. If he sat tight, he felt, as we know, that the fort could
not stand a siege. It was overtopped by the sand hills, and
water would have to be carried from the Rio Grande, a mile
and a half to west.

. . . Other officers, with myself, became convinced that we
must be eventually compelled to surrender if we remained . . .
that our only hope of saving the command from capture was in
reaching some other military post. I therefore ordered the fort
to be evacuated, and such public property as could not be
transported ... to be destroyed as far as time would allow,
and at 1 o'clock A.M. on the 27th of July I took up the line of
march for Fort Stanton . . , 32

The Mesilla Times for August 3rd, 1861, reports the
destruction :

. . . much valuable property and munitions of war . . .
muskets, clothing, a blacksmith's shop, bakery and one of the
Quartermaster's store rooms had been completely burned down.
The majority of the buildings were uninjured, and can be imme-
diately occupied by the Confederate forces. The Hospital stores,
medicines and furniture were most completely broken up,
and nearly all the arms and a great quantity of ammunition
destroyed . . . 33

Lynde had no personal knowledge of the road to Fort
Stanton, but it was reported to him that the first day's march
of twenty miles would bring the command to abundant water,
just over a pass through the mountains to the east, at San
Augustine Springs.

His report continues with a description of the march, say-
ing the command had no difficulty until daylight. Then the

33. Lydia Spencer Lane found Fort Fillmore almost obliterated, a pile of adobe dust,
when she passed the site in 1869 (7 married a soldier: Phila., J. B. Lippincott, 1893).
Today irrigation has extended cotton fields into a portion of the post's original area, and
bulldozers, in setting up a levee, have exposed old foundations and have brought broken
floor tiles to the surface. Much broken china in one quarter betrays the location of the
mess hall and kitchen, and horseshoes, nails and ashes indicate where the blacksmith shop
once stood. Local "fort-hunters" have found innumerable pre-1861 military buttons,
howitzer fuses, infantry and cavalry hat ornaments, minie bullets, and other fascinating
debris.

18 NEW MEXICO HISTORICAL REVIEW

sun started to burn cruelly. Men and teams began to tire.
The distance turned out to be greater "than had been repre-
sented." By the time they reached the pass, men were falling
everywhere from heat and thirst. Lynde now faced a decision
that has torn commanders ever since the first book on tactics.
He would have to get water swiftly, and yet this meant split-
ting his command.

. . . Up to this time there was no indication of pursuit. I
now determined to push forward with the mounted force to the
Springs, and return with water for the suffering men in the
rear. When I had nearly reached the Springs word was brought
to me that a mounted force was approaching . . . believed to be
Captain Gibbs . . . that supposition was confirmed by another
express . . .

... I found the supply of water so small as to be insufficient
for my command. After procuring all the water that could be
transported by the men with me I started back to the main
body. After riding some distance I became so much exhausted
that I could not sit upon my horse, and the command proceeded
without me ... I returned to the Springs . . , 34

Then word came to Lynde that a large force of Confed-
erates was approaching his rear guard. To meet this new
crisis, he found that no more than a hundred of his infantry
remained fit for combat, the rest having collapsed, "totally
overpowered by the intense heat."

The Mesilla Times included details that Lynde was too far
forward to have known about :

. . . the way to the Springs had the appearance of a com-
plete rout . . . lined with guns, cartridge boxes, etc., thrown
away by the fugitives. Men were lying by the roadside almost
dying from fatigue and thirst . . . friend and foe suffered most
intensely . . . men were taken prisoners and disarmed in
squads . . , 85

The memoirs of a private soldier on the Confederate side
contain a sidelight on the retreat unnoticed by anyone else.
Nevertheless it has attracted more attention from historians
than has Lynde's purported shelling of Mesilla's women and

84. Lynde to Anderson, op. cit.
35. Mesilla Times, August 3, 1861.

MAJOR ISAAC LYNDE 19

children. For that reason, if for no other, it deserves discus-
sion here.

Hank Smith makes the interesting statement that he
found the Union soldiers drunk. 36

Smith had been a member of an Arizona surveying party
recruited en masse a few days before Lynde marched on Me-
silla. While Smith calls Lynde "Lyons," there is no mistaking
that in spite of his misspellings, he has heard most of the
names in the engagement. His account sketches homely vig-
nettes that other writers overlooked or did not know about,
such as the Union infantry's feast on "roasting ears" in the
fields around Mesilla while waiting for the action to start.
These sketches commend Smith's eye for detail, but his sense
of the time interval between the Mesilla skirmish and the
surrender at the Springs is less exact probably distorted by
an excursion in which he shared, procuring horses up and
down the valley for the Confederate cavalry. To Smith, this
took about five days to accomplish, although less than forty-
eight hours passed, actually, between the skirmish and the
surrender.

Smith makes other contributions plausible in the general
picture, such as Lynde's placing cottonwood pickets across
the open end of Fort Fillmore's parade ground to render the
post less vulnerable. But Smith puts this operation between
the hour of Lynde's return from Mesilla and the hour of his
retreat toward the Springs, an insufficient period for so large
a job. Lynde's report of the sandbag project seems more ad-
missible. Smith also talks about Union reinforcements arriv-
ing from Fort Stanton. These do not figure in the official re-
ports, and no record exists of their having been dispatched.

On the whole, one can believe that Smith was present dur-
ing a large part of the action, or at least in the neighborhood,
and that he heard rumors about any events he did not actually
witness. But in looking back, he has been unable to separate
memories from hearsay.

Hank Smith's most striking contribution to the general
legend which he alone makes, and which has been somewhat

86. "Memoirs of Hank Smith," Panhandle-Plains Historical Review, Vol. I, No.
1 (1928), p. 78.

20 NEW MEXICO HISTORICAL REVIEW

carelessly perpetuated by historians 37 is his recollection of
drunkenness among Lynde's retreating troops.

... we began to overtake the infantry scattered along the
road in little bunches . . . We would stack the guns and take all
the ammunition. We found some of the guns loaded with whis-
key and a good portion of the soldiers drunk and begging for
water . . .

If this were true, it is understandable that Union officers
omitted it from their reports. However, Baylor could have
included it, but did not. The Mesilla Times is oddly silent if
the incident really happened, considering its satirical treat-
ment of Fort Fillmore's garrison on other occasions.

The Times had the entire Confederate command as a
source for material unflattering to the Union. If anyone at
all, either from the group that pursued Lynde or from the
town and valley, had known of liquor in the Union muskets, it
is difficult to imagine the Times withholding such a morsel
from a gossip-hungry countryside. One feels forced to con-
clude that no one, not even Smith, had the wit to invent this

37. More than careless, in my opinion, and even slanderous, is William A. Keleher's
treatment of this supposed incident, in his Turmoil in New Mexico, p. 150. The extent
of Keleher's embroidery can be indicated only through reprinting his vivid description
in full. Sounding like an eyewitness with his wealth of detail, he writes as follows :

"Word was whispered about the barracks that boxes of hospital brandy, and kegs
of medicinal whiskey, in goodly number, were to be abandoned. As the soldiers appraised
the situation, abandonment of a military post under orders was one thing, but abandon-
ment of high class liquor was a much more serious matter, one that required consideration
and reflection. The soldiers met the situation sensibly, and in the beginning, with discre-
tion. First one trooper, then another, and then many, took a moderate swig of the soon-
to-be-abandoned liquor, then each helped himself to a drink that seemed more appro-
priate to the occasion. One sergeant of the "old army" decided that a drop of brandy, or
perhaps two or more, on the road to Fort Stanton might be eminently fitting under the
circumstances. Pouring the water out of his canteen, he replaced it with liquor. Others,
recognizing the sergeant's commendable conduct, substituted liquor for water in their
canteens. But on the cross country march from Fort Fillmore to San Augustine Springs,
soldiers with liquor in their canteens instead of water suffered severely from thirst."

As his source, Keleher cites the Las Vegas Gazette for August 25, 1877. He does not
say whether he means Las Vegas, Nevada, or Las Vegas, New Mexico. In either case,
he devotes the better part of a page to adapting a story that appeared in a newspaper
hundreds of miles from the scene and sixteen years after the event.

H. H. Bancroft, while less lyrical than Keleher, nevertheless adds the support of his
reputation to this legend, although he shows nothing to confirm his remarks. He says :
"... as is stated, the men had been given all the whiskey they wanted, and were mostly
drunk. . ." As is stated by whom? The men were given whiskey by whom? (History of
Arizona and New Mexico, San Francisco, The History Company, 1889, p. 699, n. 14 ). As
far as I have been able to discover, the original responsibility for this story still rests
with Hank Smith and his Memoirs.

MAJOR ISAAC LYNDE 21

story at the time of the surrender. Smith reserved, or manu-
factured, the story for his memoirs. Perhaps it arose from
some other of his adventures, at another place, another time.
Of his experiences in the Mesilla Valley, we cannot be wholly
certain as to what he really saw there.

For lack of corroborating witnesses, Hank Smith's story
must be shelved, although the surgeon, McKee, by his omis-
sion of it, prevents its final burial. McKee made much of his
destruction of hospital stores as ordered by Lynde. 38 He de-
scribes this destruction as total, even though his commander
stipulated that no fire be used. He cites the Mesilla Times, to
prove his own efficiency, for the Times compared the hospital
wreckage with the small damage throughout the rest of the
fort. Certainly in all that glass-breaking (signs of which re-
main to this day) , the medicinal whiskey, rum and wine must
have perished. If Hank Smith is accepted as a truthful re-
porter, then McKee, at the very least, is either a forgetful
man in this instance, or a protector of "as good and true a
set of soldiers as ever fired a musket," 39 whom he felt had
been betrayed by Lynde. On the other hand, he could be mask-
ing by silence his own neglect, or even his disobedience, if he
let the liquor get into the hands of the troops. 40

Drunk or not, Major Lynde's command had fallen into
helpless disorganization. Lynde sensed this, although prob-
ably not completely, as he rested at the Springs.

Now appeared a new actor in the Major's personal trag-
edy : a man who was to cause him more anguish in later years
than the pursuing rebels would cause in the next half hour.

Captain Alfred Gibbs of the Mounted Rifles had been f
herding beef cattle southward from Fort Craig to Fort Fill-

38. In the Narrative, p. 18, McKee says he refused to accept the verbal order which
Lieutenant Brooks relayed to him from Lynde, because he would have to report to the
Surgeon General the disposition of the stores. Brooks thereupon sat down in McKee's
quarters and wrote the order out.

39. Narrative, p. 17.

40. This is only a possibility, and even suggesting it may be unfair to McKee,
considering his creditable service with the Army up to his Fort Fillmore assignment, and
after it for the balance of the war. But however thin, the possibility is there and I
cannot ignore it entirely. McKee's extravagance in praising the troops, and stressing
his own efficiency in all matters, measured beside his further extravagance in his abuse
of Lynde, should convince any careful reader that McKee is not telling the whole story.
There appears to be a disturbed current of emotion underrunning the facts as McKee
saw them emotion whose cause does not appear in the facts as observed by others.

22 NEW MEXICO HISTORICAL REVIEW

more. Lynde had sent Gibbs warning to stay away, after the
Mesilla skirmish. 41

Disregarding this message, Gibbs had swung widely to
approach Fort Fillmore from the side opposite to the one that
faced Mesilla, hoping to get in unobserved. Meanwhile, Lynde
had begun his retreat. Gibbs' detachment suddenly came upon
the middle of Lynde's exhausted column, as it straggled to-
ward the pass. As McKee describes this encounter, Gibbs
"unfortunately joined us at this time, fell into the trap, and
was compelled to accept our fate. . . ."

That Gibbs fell into a trap is doubtful because of his rec-
ord. 42 He was a brave, professional cavalry leader with
enough field experience to read the signs at once. He dashed
boldly into the trap and, by his own account and McKee's, put

41. Gibbs reached Point of Rocks, on the Jornada del Muerto, on the night of the
23rd. On the morning of the 26th, he encountered Captain Lane of the Mounted Rifles,
conducting a wagon train from Fort Fillmore north to Fort Craig, accompanied by Dr.
Steck, the Indian agent. They warned Gibbs of the proximity of the Texans, for they
had left Fort Fillmore on the 24th, at which time the Texans had been discovered
marching to Mesilla from El Paso.

The wagon train here is the "commissary train" Lynde was to mention as the
core of his strategy in attacking Mesilla, stated in his petition to President Lincoln on
Christmas Eve. See p. 28.

Lydia Spencer Lane, Captain Lane's wife, reports (op. cit.) the meeting with Gibbs,
after telling how she and her husband had sold their furniture and china before starting
north along the desolate Jornada to his new post. Her most startling statement is that
a letter she wrote to an Andrew Porter, which Porter telegraphed to Washington, was
the "first intimation" the War Department received of Lynde's surrender.

At Lane's request, Gibbs stayed by him all day of the 26th, to protect him from
possible Confederate attack, and then started at sunset toward Fort Fillmore.

42. According to Cullum, Gibbs went from West Point to the Mounted Rifles, serving
first at Jefferson Barracks in 1846. From there he proceeded directly to the Mexican War
and was wounded at the battle of Cerro Gordo in April, 1847. He was immediately
promoted to Brevet 2nd Lieutenant for gallant and meritorious conduct. By August,
1847, he was back in the fighting, and took part in the engagements at Contreras, Churu-
busco (in Kearny's charge on the San Antonio Garita), Chapultepec, and in the capture
of Mexico City. After the war he served in the Pacific Division, the Department of
Texas, at Fort Fillmore (1856-57), scouting against the Apaches (by whom he was
severely wounded), and other frontier duties. He achieved his captaincy in May, 1861,
and was assigned to the commissary department, on which duty he had served less than
two months when he started down to Fort Fillmore with the beef cattle for Lynde's
garrison.

General Dabney Herndon Maury records (in Recollections of a Virginian: N.Y.,
Chas. Scribner's Sons, 1894, p. 118) that Gibbs, pursuing Apaches, was ". . . desperately
wounded ... at the conclusion of a most energetic pursuit and action which had been a
complete success . . ." The details of Gibbs' career, and the tone of his dispatches, indi-
cate energy and action throughout. The contrast in temperaments and performances of
Gibbs and Lynde are striking indeed. The dashing young cavalry captain, battle-scarred
and in a rush toward further war, must have felt scant sympathy for the older, less
imaginative infantry major.

MAJOR ISAAC LYNDE 23

all his energies into keeping it from closing on the collapsing
Fort Fillmore command. Taking his cavalry rapidly along
the line of march, he caught up with Lynde at the Springs.
His report of the day's subsequent action, added to Lynde's,
gives a vivid picture of the retreat's last stages.

. . . Reported to Major Lynde and asked for orders. He told
me that there were two companies of the Seventh Infantry in
rear guard, and that they, with the Rifles, would protect the
rear. Filled my canteen at the Springs; rejoined Major Lynde
about 2 miles from it, returning to the front . . . He told me to
protect the rear ... as long as I saw fit, and then return to the
camp at the Springs. Rejoined the mounted force . . . formed at
the foot of the hill in front of the enemy . . . infantry rear
guard was completely broken down ... I had nothing but the
mounted force to rely upon . . , 43

Gibbs found the road blocked by baggage wagons filled
with stores, women and children. Howitzers were fastened
behind these wagons. Gibbs sent men to get the howitzers into
action, but no ammunition could be found for them. His sev-
enty men, lightly armed, faced three hundred, and Gibbs saw
the terrain as favorable for no more than a single charge.

... In order to gain time, I kept deploying into line, and by
rapid formations gaining ground by our superior drill, to allow
the main force now approaching the Springs ... to form before

1 reached them. I then rode rapidly to the front, and reported
to Major Lynde with my command that the enemy were about

2 miles in the rear and rapidly advancing. I asked him where
I should take my position. He told me that I might water my
command and horses . . . while I was doing so, Major Lynde
sent me an order not to move . . . sent me word later that I
could leave for Fort Stanton if I chose. Before I could mount
I received another order not to move from camp. I went towards
him . . . saw him in conversation with two mounted officers,
whom I did not know ... I heard Major Lynde say, 'I agree to
these terms' . . . Nearly every officer protested earnestly, and
even violently, against this base surrender . . , 44

Then Gibbs describes the "altercation by Major Lynde's
subordinates" becoming so strenuous that the Confederate

43. OR I, 4, p. 10.

44. OR I, 4, pp. 10-11.

24 NEW MEXICO HISTORICAL REVIEW

commander, Baylor, asked who was in charge. McKee took
part in this altercation, according to his official statement :

... I, among other officers, entered my solemn protest
against the surrender, but were peremptorily told by Major
Lynde that he was the commanding officer . . .

McKee cannot resist anticipating his later role as chron-
icler of melodrama, even in a supposedly factual report to an
exclusively military audience. He continues :

... To see old soldiers and strong men weep like children,
men who had faced the battle's storm of the Mexican war, is a
sight that I hope I may never again be present at. A braver
and truer command could not be found than that which has in
this case been made a victim of cowardice and imbecility . . , 45

Seventeen years later, in his published narrative, he was
even more struck by the splendor of the boys in blue at their
last stand. He remembered, or found in his notes, quite dif-
ferent men from the victims of heat and thirst that Gibbs
saw lying under bushes, unable to rise ; that Baylor reported
unfit for combat ; that Hank Smith found loaded with whis-
key. To McKee, ". . . at least five hundred infantry and
cavalry, trained, disciplined and well-drilled . . ."contrasted
strikingly with the ". . . badly armed . . . irregular com-
mand of Texans." As for his protests to Lynde with other
officers, he remembers them as ". . . farcical and ludicrous
in the extreme . . . too late . . . ought to have been done
before . . ," 46

In minute details of happenings before, during and after
the two days of skirmish, retreat and surrender, the Narra-
tive displays great certainty. But McKee questions his mem-
ory on the number of Union companies captured one of
those large, familiar facts that should easily be retained by
one so close to the affair, so convinced of his own Napoleonic
omniscience in military matters.

Lynde took a clearer, less emotional view, stating a simple
case to Canby :

. . . Under the circumstances I considered our case hope-
less; that it was worse than useless to resist; that honor did

45. McKee to the Surgeon General, August 16, 1861. OR I, 4, p. 11.

46. Narrative, pp. 21-22.

MAJOR ISAAC LYNDE 25

not demand the sacrifice of blood after the terrible suffering
that our troops had already undergone, and when that sacrifice
would be totally useless . . .

The strength of my command at the time of surrender was,
Mounted Rifles, 95 rank and file and 2 officers . . . seven com-
panies of the Seventh Infantry, with 8 officers . . , 47

At this point, for the first and only time in his dispatches,
Lynde's personality seems to appear momentarily from be-
hind the formal, military report :

. . . Surrounded by open and secret enemies, no reliable
information could be obtained, and disaffection prevailing in
my own command, to what extent it was impossible to ascer-
tain, but much increased, undoubtedly, by the conduct of officers
who left their post without authority. 48 My position has been
one of great difficulty, and has ended in the misfortune of sur-
rendering my command to the enemy. The Texan troops acted
with great kindness toward our men, exerting themselves in
carrying water to the famishing ones in the rear; yet it was
two days before the infantry could move from the camp, and
then only with the assistance of their captors . . .

Lynde and his officers and men, except for a few who then
and there either joined the Confederates or chose military im-
prisonment, were paroled out of the war. Baylor gave them
enough rifles and food to get them north through Indian coun-
try to Canby's headquarters at Santa Fe. From there, Lynde's
command broke up in scattered assignments to non-belliger-
ent duties.

Lynde started the long journey eastward to meet certain
punishment. Aged 55, he was not yet an old soldier, yet he
had come through a long and uneventful career to within

47. OR I, 4, p. 6. Captain J. H. Potter's official recapitulation of the troops sur-
rendered (OR I, 4, p. 15) lists 11 commissioned officers and 399 enlisted men including
non-commissioned officers paroled ; 16 taken by the Confederates as prisoners of war ;
26 deserters ; and "40 available for service, not paroled." This totals 492 men, somewhat
less than the "700 effective men" referred to in the Mesilla Times (August 3, 1861), or
the "between five and six hundred veterans" of McKee's Narrative, and somewhat more
than the "three officers and 300 men" of Hank Smith's Memoirs.

48. Whether Lynde refers to officers who resigned and passed through his post
on their way to the Confederacy, or to officers in his immediate command who forsook
their duties without leave, is not evident in this writing. In Lynde's statement routed
by President Lincoln to the Judge Advocate General on January 8, 1862, he names
Captains Garland and Jones in the latter connection. As for the former possibility,
see Canby to Adjutant General, March 16, 1866, summarized in this essay, beginning
on page 25.

26 NEW MEXICO HISTORICAL REVIEW

sight of honorable, pensioned retirement. But if he had
counted on this, the dream had burned away in the desert on
the road to San Augustine Springs. Now, even as the mesquite
and wind-blasted hills sank behind him, the angry repetition
of his name began sounding in every quarter.

Sometime in October, the Reverend Doctor Cressy of
Stapleton, Staten Island, got a letter from his son, Edward,
two thousand miles away at Fort Craig. Edward described
Lynde as surrendering in the "most disgraceful and cowardly
manner." The young man added that he was "perfectly dis-
gusted with the whole affair," and called Lynde "that infernal
coward." 49

Bitterness threw out tentacles like a poisonous vine. The
New York Herald Tribune for September 7th picked up an
August llth report from Santa Fe, which in turned picked
up a dispatch just arrived from El Paso, signed "A.
Deckarle." He says that if the surrender story he has heard
is true, it is "the most shameful thing ever done by an officer
of the United States army."

On September 21st, the Herald Tribune quoted another
Santa Fe report, this one dated August 18th. "Major Lynde,
I understand, was here yesterday. Why he has not been ar-
rested and court-martialled on account of the shameful sur-
render of Fort Fillmore, I cannot understand. . . ." Then the
New York paper reprints items from the Santa Fe Gazette
of August 17th. One of these raises a lonely voice in Lynde's
behalf: "It appears . . . that the conduct of Major Lynde
was not so bad in this affair as it was at first represented.
. . ." The Gazette blames him for a lack of military skill,
and failure to prepare his troops sufficiently for the retreat
from Fort Fillmore as opposed, we must assume, to treach-
ery or cowardice previously reported.

On September 27th, Secretary of War Cameron got a mes-

49. OR II, 3, pp. 33-34. Although he had been in a few Indian battles, the Mesilla
skirmish was Edward F. Cressy's first taste of white man's war. He was graduated
from West Point in 1858, nineteenth in his class of twenty-seven. He was made a 1st
Lieutenant, Mounted Rifles, less than two months before the surrender. Paroled until
late summer of 1862, he was exchanged and reentered the war as a captain in the 3rd
Cavalry, and was brevetted at the close of the war to major's and lieutenant-colonel's
rank. He served again in New Mexico, at Fort Bayard after 1866, and was honorably
mustered out in 1871. He died in 1899.

MAJOR ISAAC LYNDE 27

sage from Fort Fauntleroy, New Mexico, containing these
words : ". . . disgraceful surrender of old Lynde, superannu-
ated and unfit for service, of a U. S. force of 750 men to 350
Arizona cut-throats. . . ." 50

On November 7th, the New York Times said that Captain
Gibbs and Lieutenants McNally and Cressy had reached St.
Louis with ". . . one hundred and three of the Seventh Regi-
ment . . . whom Major Lynd [sic] so ingloriously surren-
dered." The day this story appeared in New York, Gibbs filed
a request in St. Louis for a court of inquiry into the surrender,
in the name of all the officers of his own command, and par-
ticularly concerning his part in the proceedings. 51

Two days later, Lynde's name again appeared in the New
York Times: ". . . surrendered his command so ingloriously
. . . arrived at Hannibal under arrest. He was not ironed,
as he deserved to have been." 52 What had begun as a snow-
flake in the storm of war had become a snowball, rolled by
busy hands to a mountain top and about to flatten the Major.

The House of Representatives, on December 4th, adopted
a resolution to request a report from the Secretary of War
on what measures had been taken ". . . to expose and pun-
ish such of the officers now on parole as were guilty of treason
or cowardice in that surrender, and relieve from suspicion
such as were free from blame." 53

In his answer, dated December 12th, the Secretary en-
closed a report from the Adjutant General which said that
Lynde had been dropped from the Army rolls on November
25th, and that no other officer was believed at fault. 54

In the closing days of 1861, the New York Times was still
pointing to the forts "disgracefully surrendered," 55 and
specifically to Fort Fillmore, as ". . . that post . . .traitor-
ously surrendered by Col. Lynde. . . ," 56 Promoted by a
newspaper, but stripped of his honor, career and future se-
curity by his government, Lynde must have looked toward the

50. Wm. Need to Cameron, September 27, 1861. OR I, 50, Vol. 1, p. 639.

51. Gibbs to Ass't. Adj. Gen., November 7, 1861. OR I, 4, p. 9.

52. N. Y. Times, November 9, 1861, p. 4.

53. OR I, 4, p. 15.

54. Ibid.

55. N.Y. Times, December 26, 1861, p.3.

56. Op. Cit., December 28, 1861, p. 1, coL 1.

28 NEW MEXICO HISTORICAL REVIEW

new year with deep despair. His judges had forgotten him in
the press of war, but his accusers had not. Their anger would
dog him through the early months of 1862.

Lynde's eastward progress had taken him, under arrest,
to Jeiferson Barracks, Missouri, by early December. On the
5th, he had written to the Hon. H. M. Rice in Washington,
asking for help toward a fair trial "by my 'peers" and deny-
ing intention or action of treason toward his government.
Lynde also denied having surrendered his command to an
inferior force. "I have not served . . . the United States for
over thirty four years and most of that time on the extremest
frontier, to turn traitor at this late day. . . .""

By December 24th, Lynde had gotten to Washington. On
that day, writing with what appears to be either a sick or
senile hand, he petitioned President Lincoln 58 for restoration
to rank to enable him to be tried by a court of inquiry or court-
martial, 59 ". . . confident of my ability to prove to any un-
prejudiced tribunal that I had authority to abandon that
post. . . ." Lincoln transmitted Lynde's seven-page state-
ment, apparently enclosed with the petition, to the Judge Ad-
vocate General, with a note requesting a review of the case.
The statement is not significantly different from Lynde's of-
ficial dispatches to Canby in its history of the New Mexico
events surrounding him, except in one new detail. Lynde now
was saying that when the Texans appeared in Mesilla, he
heard that they intended to pursue a commissary train he had
sent to Fort Craig several days before. 60 He thereupon de-
cided to "make a demonstration in the direction of Mesilla,"
to prevent the pursuit of the train and to try the strength of
the Texans. His ". . . calculations all proved true for I was
afterwards informed that when I approached the town they
were just starting a part of their command to pursue the
train and their plan was, if they were driven from the town
to make a dash upon the fort, which they might have done

57. Lynde to H. M. Rice, December 5, 1861. Consolidated file 107-1861, RG 153,
Office of the Advocate General (National Archives) .

58. Lynde to the President (File 107-1861).

59. According to Lynde's "Appointments, Commissions and Personal File" (L736-
ACP-1866), National Archives, these were never granted.

60. See note 41.

MAJOR ISAAC LYNDE 29

as they were all mounted and I had but about 50 mounted
men. As it was the train escaped. . . ." 61

This puts a light on the whole Mesilla action that con-
ceivably might have saved Lynde much anguish if he had ad-
vanced it earlier. His reevaluation of the Texan strength in
this statement is probably less admissible, in view of his for-
mer official reports. He now thinks Baylor had about five hun-
dred and fifty men to his own five hundred, and that they
would have increased to eight hundred and fifty with rein-
forcements from El Paso. He says that Gibbs reported eight
companies of mounted rebels to him at the Springs. A note
by someone unidentified, at the end of Lynde's statement, says
that Texan regiments were known to have one hundred men
each.

Lynde's petition is mentioned in an opinion delivered in
January, 1862, by the Judge Advocate, J. F. Lee. He says
Lynde has alleged he had authority to abandon Fort Fillmore,
that the circumstances justified it, that he did not surrender
to an inferior force, and that he protests his loyalty. In Lee's
view, the charges including surrendering "disgracefully
and shamefully," and "misbehavior before the enemy" be-
cause of retreating after demanding an unconditional sur-
render are punishable with death; but he notes that the
more lenient course of discharging Lynde has been taken.
The Judge Advocate says his department is satisfied as to
the facts and previous judgment, adding that Lynde may be
restored by the President with the Senate's approval. He does
not think the previous judgment is likely to be reversed. 62

Meanwhile, Lynde's surrender had put an irksome, even
though temporary, curb on the careers of several young offi-
cers of his former command. Captain Alfred Gibbs, f rettingly
belligerent in the only manner possible because of his parole,
poured his energies onto official paper to get himself back into
the war. Shortly he would be exchanged and go off to Virginia,
where the little depots with the great, bloody names would
join the Mexican battles among his citations. He would move
up rapidly, as he always had, to become a Brevet Major Gen-

si. Lynde to the President, op. cit.
62. OR II, 3, pp. 189-190.

30 NEW MEXICO HISTORICAL REVIEW

eral by the time of Appomattox, go west again to frontier
duty and die, still young, still fuming perhaps, in Kansas in
1868. 63 But now in February and March of 1862 he was pull-
ing at every string to save himself, as he saw it, from un-
merited disgrace.

Taking his case directly to the Secretary of War, he en-
closed in his letter a list of his command, ". . . ignominiously
surrendered by Maj. Isaac Lynde." He asked that he and his
men be released from ". . . the ignominious position in which
we have been placed by the cowardice of our commanding
officer. . . ," 64 While Gibbs can hardly be blamed for continu-
ing to stir this troublesome brew of anguish and accusation,
his repetition of certain phrases seems to hammer them out
in letters of iron. They leave their impress on the reports and
letters of other people prodded by Gibbs. Even the newspa-
pers pick them up. Ignominious surrender, for example, fig-
ures so frequently that coincidence begins to seem unlikely.
It could be questioned whether Gibbs was reading the news-
papers or the newspapers were reading Gibbs.

He sent a list of his paroled command to the Department
of Missouri, and referred inevitably to the ". . . ignominious
surrender of Maj. Isaac Lynde." 65 He applied to a congress-
man to aid him toward exchange, 66 again mentioning the ig-
nominious surrender, and this note was sent along to Stanton
wi th the comment : ". . . seems they were treacherously sur-
rendered by Maj. Isaac Lynde. . . ." 67 A second enclosure
was a letter from a man in Detroit, where Gibbs was stationed
on parole. The letter calls Gibbs' command "... a portion
of the force so shamefully surrendered by Colonel Lynde." 68
Friends who knew nothing of the surrender except what
Gibbs had told them, obligingly contributed to the destruc-
tion of Lynde's name.

On November 27th, 1866, five years from the day he was
dropped from the Army, Lynde was restored to his former
rank by order of President Johnson, and retired.

63. Cullum, Register, p. 168.

64. Gibbs to Stanton, February 22, 1862. OR II, 3, pp. 298-99.
66. Gibbs to N. H. McLean, March 4, 1862. OR II, 3, pp. 346-7.

66. Gibbs to Howard, March 4, 1862. OR II, 3, p. 369.

67. Howard to Stanton, March 11, 1862. OR II, 8, p. 368.

68. Wm. Gray to Howard, March 5, 1862. OR II, 3, p. 369.

MAJOR ISAAC LYNDE 31

Lynde's old commander, Canby, had much to do with this.
Apparently in answer to a request from the Adjutant Gen-
eral's Office, he listed what he thought were the extenuating
circumstances of Lynde's surrender at San Augustine
Springs, first giving his opinion that Lynde's force had been
"sufficiently ample," and that Lynde should not have aban-
doned Fort Fillmore until the troops from Arizona had gotten
safely out.

While he does not excuse Lynde, Canby points out certain
factors that he feels had influence on Lynde's failure. First
was the dissatisfaction among the troops. They had not been
paid in ten months, ". . . in consequence of the desertion
and defalcation of a paymaster." Canby next tells of the dis-
loyalty around Lynde, and the effect of secessionist pressure
on the soldiery. Deserting officers tried to demoralize the
troops. A rebel judge in El Paso let his opinion be known that
since the Union had been dissolved, no officers or men were
bound to it by a former oath of allegiance. Then Canby goes
on to emphasize the blow to the department caused by the
discovery that Colonel W. W. Loring, its highest ranking
officer from whom Canby took over the Department of New
Mexico, had been in correspondence with the Confederates
before his resignation.

Canby adds that two of Lynde's officers and several men
deserted just before the engagement with the enemy at Me-
silla. The effect upon Lynde's mind was still further in-
creased, says Canby, by Lynde's suspicion that his own men
had fired upon him.

. . . From that moment he appears to have lost all confi-
dence in his officers and men: to have suspected treachery
of which he was to be the first victim . . . experienced a men-
tal paralysis that rendered him incapable of judgment or

energy

69

Two months before this report from Canby, the Judge Ad-
vocate General had delivered another opinion this time to
the Secretary of War. He cited testimony from Captain Crilly

69. Canby to Adjt. Gen., Lynde's file (L736-ACP-1866), National Archives. It
should here be recalled that 26 of his command later deserted to the enemy. ( See note 47. )

32 NEW MEXICO HISTORICAL REVIEW

and Surgeon Norris, Purveyor General of the New Mexico
department. Crilly had said of Lynde's action that it ". . .
should be attributed not to the disloyalty of Major Lynde but
to his incapacity for the management of his command in such
an emergency, he having become superannuated in service." 70
Norris felt that the ". . . loss of the command was caused
by [a lack of?] foresight and precaution . . .," and that
Lynde's loyalty was not questioned.

From this and Canby's testimony, the Judge Advocate
General arrived at these conclusions :

. . . first . . . the abandonment . . . warranted by a fair con-
struction of Col. Canby's orders, in a certain conjuncture which
Major Lynde was justified in the circumstances in believing to
have arrived . . . perhaps he fell into an error of judgment,
cannot be properly held guilty of dereliction of duty : second
. . . precautions taken . . . for defense were not such as the situ-
ation called for, nor such as a reasonably prudent, vigelent
[sic] and competent officer should have exercised. third . . .
undue precipitancy of the movement tended to demoralize the
troops: fourth . . . his mismanagement of the retreat . . .
was unsoldierly and culpable: and fifth . . . surrender to a
probably inferior force, without firing a shot, though perhaps
it finally became inevitable, was, nevertheless without excuse,
and fully deserving of the rebuke with which it was visited." 71

Eight months later, in September, 1866, someone per-
suaded the nation's foremost military hero to look into the
whole matter. The name of that someone does not appear
anywhere in the official files, but it should not be difficult to
guess. It is still a matter of local knowledge in Lynde's home
village of Williamstown that his daughter, "Lou," sometimes
visited there, and that she was Mrs. Frederick Tracy Dent.
According to Cullum's Register, her husband and Ulysses
Grant were classmates at West Point. Somewhere out on the
frontier, where Dent several times served on the same posts
as Lynde, the young officer met and married the older officer's
daughter. Dent's sister married, also. Her name was Julia,

70. See note 50. Crilly's "superannuated in service" is very close to "superannuated
and unfit for service" of Need's letter to Cameron from Fort Fauntleroy. Although I
have found no record of Crilly visiting Fort Fauntleroy after the surrender, he may pos-
sibly have done so and talked with Need there.

71. J. Holt, Judge Advocate Gen'l to Sec'v of War. Lynde's file (op. ctt.).

MAJOR ISAAC LYNDE 33

and she later became Mrs. U. S. Grant. Another binding cir-
cumstance in this small net of relationships was Dent's double
identity as Isaac Lynde's son-in-law on the one hand, and
Grant's aide-de-camp on the other. The Dictionary of Ameri-
can Biography says of him, in part: ". . . Dent was not a
brilliant soldier, and owed much to his relationship to General
Grant. ..." Probably the same might be said of Major Isaac
Lynde.

In any case, Grant found that Lynde had been "summarily
dismissed . . . without trial or investigation of his conduct."
Grant recommended to Stanton that Lynde be appointed
Colonel of Infantry and retired immediately on appropriate
pay. 72

A memorandum from the Adjutant General's Office re-
plied that Lynde could not, under the system then in force, be
raised to Colonel, but that he could be restored to his Major's
rank, with his pay retroactive. In obscure support of this
view, it was pointed out that Lynde would have been a Colonel
in 1864, had he stayed in the service, but that he had passed
the age of sixty-two, the retirement age, only a month before
Grant's recommendation. 73

The wheels of the Army began to turn, and after a suitable
number of revolutions and two more long weeks for Lynde, on
November 27th the War Department's General Order No. 94
came out of the huge machine. It announced that by Presi-
dent Johnson's direction the order dismissing Lynde back in
1861 had been revoked. His Major's rank was restored, and he
was retired as of July 28, 1866. 74

* * * *

Major Isaac Lynde lived for another twenty years. His
listing in Cullum closes with the curious fact that he served
on court-martial duty on March 7, 1867 but this could have
nothing to do with his own trouble, since by that time, of
course, he was safely reinstated. Very little else is known
about him. The old soldier who had shown so much promise as
a boy in the Vermont hills, who must have felt that promise

72. Grant to Stanton, September 18, 1866, Lynde's file, op. cit.
78. J. C. Kelton memorandum, Lynde's file, op. cit.
74. Lynde's file, op. cit.

34 NEW MEXICO HISTORICAL REVIEW

wearing away in his middle years on the western plains and
the southwestern deserts, went neither east nor west nor
southwest in his remaining days. Instead, he returned to
scenes reminiscent of his first duty, as a young lieutenant, in
the Old Northwest. He lived for a time in St. Paul, Minne-
sota. 75 Later, he moved to Florida, but when he left the one
for the other is not clear.

On April 4, 1886, a telegram from St. Augustine, Florida,
signed by an N. R. Fitzhugh, informed Mrs. T. F. Dent of
Washington, D. C., that Major Lynde had died the preceding
night, and that his body would be sent to Baltimore. 76 A few
weeks later, Captain F. Marcy Lynde, retired, reported to the
Adjutant General the cause of his father's death. 77 He termed
it a "general breaking down of the system from advanced
age." Army records show that the Major would have been 82
in that year. According to his West Point file, he would have
been 80.

It is curious that Lynde died at Picolata, twenty miles
from St. Augustine, roughly the same distance as from Fort
Fillmore to St. Augustine Springs, New Mexico, over the
route of his old retreat. In a way, it could be said that his
body, shipped through St. Augustine on its way to Baltimore,
retraced the pattern of his tragic last hours with his
command.

Just three months before Major Lynde's death, James
Cooper McKee the doctor, the tactician, the champion of
righteousness republished his petition to the Army, 78 chal-
lenging the legality of President Johnson's order restoring
Lynde, and demanding that the old Major's name be once
more stricken from the rolls.

75. There he dated and filled out a form, sent to him by the Army in 1872, stating
that he had "never served in any Volunteer Organization in any capacity." Op. cit.

76. Ibid.

77. Ibid.

78. Narrative, p. 27.

MAJOR ISAAC LYNDE 35

ADDITIONAL BIBLIOGRAPHY OF WORKS
NOT CITED IN THE NOTES

PRIMARY SOURCES:

Roberts, Colonel Benjamin S., Testimony (before the Committee on the Conduct of

the War), 37th Congress, 3rd Session. Washington, Government Printing Office,

1863.
U.S. Army, Official Register for September, 1861. U.S. Adjutant General's Office,

September 1, 1861.
U.S. Army, Regulations for the army of the United States: N.Y., Harper & Bros.,

1857.
U.S. Adjutant General's Department, Subject Index of General Orders: Washington,

Government Printing Office, 1882.

SECONDARY SOURCES:

Bender, A. B., "Military Posts in the Southwest," NMHR, VoL XVI, 127-147.

Crimmins, Colonel M. L., "Fort Fillmore," NMHR, Vol. VI, pp. 327-333.

Darrow, Mrs. Caroline Baldwin, "Recollections of the Twiggs Surrender," Battles

and Leaders of the Civil War, Vol. I (1887), pp. 33-39.
Davis, W. W. H., El Gringo, or New Mexico and her people : N.Y., Harper & Bros.,

1857.

Farish, Thomas Edwin, History of Arizona: Phoenix, 1915-18.
Greeley, Horace, The American Conflict: Hartford, O. D. Case & Co., 1866.
Hayes, Augustus Allen, Jr., New Colorado and the Santa Fe Trail: London, C.

Kegan Paul & Co., 1881.
Henderson, H. McCorry, Texas in the confederacy: Naylor Co., San Antonio, 1955.

P. 70.
Manucy, Albert, Artillery through the ages, National Park Service Interpretive

Series, History No. 3 : U.S. Gov't Printing Office, Washington, 1949. Howitzers,

p. 56 ff.
Pendell, Lucille H. and Elizabeth Bethel, Preliminary inventory of the records of the

Adjutant General's Office, Preliminary inventory No. 17 : Washington, 1949,

National Archives Publication No. 49-21.

Pettis, George H., Brevet Captain, U.S.A., "The Confederate invasion of New Mexi-
co and Arizona," Battles and Leaders of the Civil War, Vol. II (1887), pp.

103-111.
Stanley, F. (Stanley Francis Louis Crocchiola), Fort Union: The World Press,

1953.
Teel, Trevanion T., Captain, C.S.A., "Sibley's New Mexican campaign its objects

and the causes of its failure," Battles and Leaders of the Civil War, VoL II

(1887), p. 700.
Twitchell, Ralph Emerson, "The Confederate invasion of New Mexico," Old Santa Fe,

Vol.111 (1916), pp. 5-43.
Twitchell, Ralph Emerson, Leading facts in New Mexican history, Vol. II. Cedar

Rapids, 1911.
Waldrip, William, "New Mexico during the Civil War," NMHR, Vol. XXVIII, No. 3

(July) and No. 4 (Oct.).
Walker, Charles S., "Causes of the Confederate invasion of New Mexico," NMHR,

Vol. VIII, pp. 76-97.
Walker, Charles S., "Confederate government in Dona Ana County," NMHR, VoL

VI, 253-302.
Watford, W. H., "Confederate Western Ambitions," Southwest Historical Review,

Vol. XLIV, No. 2 (Oct. 1940).

FORT UNION AND THE SANTA FE TRAIL
By ROBERT M. UTLEY *

FOR over half a century a wide band of wagon ruts joined
New Mexico, first as a Mexican province, later as Ameri-
can territory, to the Missouri frontier and the States. Be-
tween the American conquest in 1846 and the coming of the
railroad in the decade of the seventies, the Santa Fe Trail
was a momentous avenue of commerce, transportation, and
communication.

In Kansas the Trail divided, to enter New Mexico by two
routes. The Cimarron Cutoff, shortest but most dangerous
fork, turned southwest from the Arkansas River and followed
the dry course of the Cimarron River into the Oklahoma pan-
handle, reaching New Mexico near present Clayton. The
Mountain Branch, 100 miles longer and with the treacherous
barrier of Raton Pass, kept to the north bank of the Arkansas,
turned southwest along the base of the Rockies, and dropped
into New Mexico at Raton Pass. The two branches united at
the junction of Mora River and Sapello Creek, near modern
Watrous. Six miles north of this strategic road junction the
United States Army in 1851 built Fort Union, destined to
play a direct, active, and vital role in the subsequent drama
of the Santa Fe Trail.

Indeed, Fort Union owed its birth to the Santa Fe Trail.
It was not, as usually assumed, conceived as the "guardian of
the trail," although this turned out to be a major role. Its
principal function was to serve as a depot for military sup-
plies shipped over the Santa Fe Trail to the United States
Army in New Mexico. 1 The Mexican War had revolutionized
the Santa Fe trade. Before 1846 the Trail had been an inter-

* National Park Service, Region Three, Santa Fe, New Mexico.

1. There were, of course, other reasons. Colonel Sumner had been advised by Secre-
tary of War Conrad to move the troops out of the New Mexican towns and advance
them closer to the Indian country. Fort Union was thus an outpost against the Utes
and Jicarilla Apaches. At the same time, Maj. Thomas Swords, examining the New
Mexican defense system for the Secretary, reported that the towns, besides being expen-
sive and inconvenient sites for military posts, had a corrupting influence on the soldiers.
Conrad to Sumner, April 1, 1851, in Annie H. Abel (ed.), The Official Correspondence
of James S. CaUioun (Washington, 1915), 383-84; A. V. Bender, "Frontier Defense in
the Territory of New Mexico, 1846-1858," NEW MEXICO HISTORICAL REVIEW, IX, 3 (July,
1934), 264-65.

FORT UNION 37

national highway linking two alien communities. But "Kear-
ny's baggage train," as Paxson wrote, "started a new era in
plains freighting. ... It became a matter of business, run-
ning smoothly along familiar channels." 2 Gregg's "commerce
of the prairies," conducted largely by private speculators, all
but disappeared, and freighters specializing in hauling some-
one else's goods took over the Santa Fe Trail. A major por-
tion of these goods was destined for the frontier posts in
the Territory of New Mexico.

The Southwest proved an expensive acquisition to the
United States, for the population had been promised protec-
tion from marauding Indians. In 1849 almost 1,000 soldiers,
one-seventh of the United States Army, served in New Mex-
ico's Ninth Military Department. By 1859 the number had
risen to 2,000, distributed among 16 scattered frontier out-
posts. The land was not rich enough to subsist this army, and
almost all provisions had to be hauled over the Santa Fe Trail
from Fort Leavenworth.

The need for a depot on the eastern frontier of New Mex-
ico to receive and distribute these goods to other posts early
became apparent. In the spring of 1851 the Department Com-
mander, Maj. and Bvt. Col. John Munroe, sent his Quarter-
master, Capt. L. C. Easton, and Lt. John G. Parke of the
Topographical Engineers to "examine the country in the vi-
cinity of Las Vegas and on the Moro [sic] Creek with a view
of selecting a site for the establishment of a depot for sup-
plies coming from the U. S." 3 By late April the reconnaissance
had been completed and a report turned in (it has not been
found) , 4 but Munroe was almost immediately replaced by Lt.
Col. and Bvt. Col. Edwin V. Sumner. Nevertheless, in July
1851 Sumner established a supply depot such as envisioned
by his predecessor and located it in the area reconnoitered by
Parke and Easton. He also moved Department Headquarters

2. Frederick L. Paxson, The Last American Frontier (New York, 1910), 67.

3. Lt. and Acting Assistant Adjutant General (hereafter AAAG) Lafayette McLaws
to Lt. John G. Parke, March 12, 1851; Special Order (hereafter SO) No. 14, Hq. Ninth
Mil. Dept., Santa Fe, March 14, 1851 ; National Archives, typescript in Arrott Collection,
Highlands Univ., Las Vegas, N. M. Hereafter all citations of material from the Na-
tional Archives in the Arrott Collection will be designated NA, AC.

4. Munroe to Adjt. Gen. (hereafter AG) Roger Jones, April 30, 1851, NA, AC,
transmitted the report to Washington.

38 NEW MEXICO HISTORICAL REVIEW

from Santa Fe to the new depot, which was named Fort
Union. 5

Military freight hauled from Fort Leavenworth was un-
loaded at the Fort Union depot, repacked, and assigned as
needed to the posts of New Mexico and Arizona. Often, when
wagons or entire trains contained shipments for one fort only,
they continued directly to the destination without unloading
at Fort Union. Other Quartermaster depots were established,
at Yuma and San Antonio, but Fort Union continued through-
out its lifetime to be the supply center of the frontier army
in the Southwest.

Virtually all military freighting on the Santa Fe Trail was
performed under contract by civilian companies. Waste and
inefficiency had characterized the logistical support, managed
by the Quartermaster Department, of Kearny's Army of the
West, and in 1848 the Government turned to the contract sys-
tem. For $11.75 per hundred, James Browne of Independence
in that year agreed to transport 200,000 pounds of supplies
to New Mexico. The next year, in partnership with William
H. Russell, he contracted to haul all government stores over
the Santa Fe Trail for $9.88 per hundred. Joseph Clymer and
David Waldo entered the field in 1850, and that year 278
wagons of military freight passed over the Trail to New Mex-
ico. Some continued to the new post at El Paso. Browne, Rus-
sell, and Company were the largest contractors, accounting
for 135 of the 278 wagons. 6

In 1853 another new freighter made his appearance, his
name destined to be linked to that of William H. Russell. Alex-
ander Majors made two round trips to New Mexico, one with
a consignment of goods from Independence to Santa Fe, the
other under government contract from Fort Leavenworth to
Fort Union. In 1854, again under contract, he sent 100
wagons in four trains from Leavenworth to Union. The fol-
lowing year he went into partnership with William H. Rus-

5. Sumner to Jones, Oct. 24, 1851, in Abel (ed.), Official Correspondence of James
S. Calhoun, 416-18. Throughout the 1850's and 1860's Department Headquarters was lo-
cated variously at Fort Union, Santa Fe, Albuquerque, and elsewhere depending on the
scene of most active operations.

6. Walker D. Wyman, "The Military Phase of Santa Fe Freighting, 1846-1865,"
Kansas Historical Quarterly, I, 5 (November, 1932), 415-28.

FORT UNION 39

sell. In 1856 Majors and Russell had 350 wagons on the Trail,
and the next year contracted to deliver five million pounds of
freight. In 1858, a third partner having joined the firm, Rus-
sell, Majors, and Waddell contracted to deliver all freight
turned over to them by the Government, and by 1860 and
1861 were the principal contractors freighting between Fort
Leavenworth and Fort Union. 7

Large-scale military freighting, dominated by Russell,
Majors, and Waddell, continued until 1866, when the rail-
road moved west into Kansas. Each railroad town thereafter
served briefly as the port of embarkation for freight wagons.
After the rails reached Denver in 1870, wagons continued to
move supplies over the Mountain Branch of the Trail between
Pueblo and Fort Union. The Santa Fe Railroad crossed the
Mora Valley in 1879 and ended the era of military freighting
on the Santa Fe Trail.

Fort Union consisted not only of a Quartermaster depot
to handle incoming supplies, but also of a military post. The
post garrison performed duties similar to those of other gar-
risons in the West. One important function of the frontier
army was to blaze new wagon roads and improve old ones.
Officers and men of Fort Union expended such labor princi-
pally on the Santa Fe Trail.

Shortly after Colonel Sumner established Fort Union, his
Quartermaster, Capt. E. S. Sibley, laid out a road that linked
Fort Union with the main route of the Santa Fe Trail between
the Mora Crossings and Las Vegas. Although it saved several
miles, this route seems to have enjoyed only briefly the favor
of freighters and other travellers. 8

At the same time, Sumner sent Lt. John Pope of the Topo-
graphical Engineers to seek "a new road by the shortest
practicable route between this point and Fort Leavenworth."
Lying between the Cimarron Cutoff and the Mountain
Branch, Pope's road intersected the Arkansas River at Big

7. Ibid.; Alexander Majors, Seventy Years on the Frontier (Denver, 1893), 140-43;
Edward Steere, Fort Union: Its Economic and Military History (Ms. Report, National
Park Service, Santa Fe, c. 1939), 55-57.

8. Report of Col. J. K. F. Mansfield . . . Regarding his Inspection of the Depart-
ment of New Mexico During . . . 1853 (Ms., National Archives, typescript in Library,
Museum of New Mexico, Santa Fe) .

40 NEW MEXICO HISTORICAL REVIEW

Timbers, near the site of Bent's Fort, in modern Colorado. 9
An extension of this road, probably also pioneered by Pope,
connected Fort Union with the Cimarron Branch at the cross-
ing of the Canadian River by a route lying north of the Tur-
key Mountains, thus gaining several miles to travellers
arriving on the Cimarron Branch. 10

Pope's road was a compromise between the Mountain and
Cimarron Branches. It was shorter than the Mountain
Branch and, by skirting the eastern slope of the Raton Moun-
tains, avoided the winter snows of Raton Pass. During the
Civil War it had another advantage : it was far enough from
Texas to be free of the Confederate threat to the Cimarron
Branch, a threat that existed less in reality than in the minds
of Union officers.

The advantages of this road, with a slight variation at its
northern end to connect with Fort Wise (later Fort Lyon),
were not lost upon officers at Fort Union and Santa Fe. Sup-
ply trains for Union forces in New Mexico might use this
road the year around without fear of Texan guerrillas. From
Fort Union to the head of the Cimarron the road had already
been surveyed, and required only minor banking and grading
at stream crossings. From Fort Wise south but little work was
needed, principally on the eastern slopes of the Raton Moun-
tains. During the winter of 1861 and summer of 1862, there-
fore, details from Forts Union and Wise worked towards each
other on this road, meeting on the upper Cimarron. 11 What
share of Civil War freight the road carried thereafter is not
apparent. It is clear, however, that the Mountain and Cim-
arron Branches also continued to be used by freighters.

In addition to processing military freight and seeking new
and better routes, troops from Fort Union performed another

9. SO No. 68, Fort Union, Aug. 6, 1851, NA, AC ; Sumner to AG Roger Jones, Oct.
24, 1851, in Abel (ed.), Official Correspondence of James S. Calhoun, 416-18.

10. Mansfield Report (1853). Colonel Mansfield gives credit for this to Capt. James
H. Carleton, whom he probably confused with Lieutenant Pope. Carleton and his com-
pany were patrolling the Cimarron Route at the same time Pope was reconnoitering
the new road. The mistake, therefore, is understandable.

11. Capt. & AQM J. C. McFerran to Maj. & QM J. L. Donaldson, Nov. 11, 1861 ;
Lt. & AAAG W. J. L. Nicodemus to Capt. Elmer Otis, 4th Cav., Nov. 15, 1861 ; Nico-
demus to Commanding Officer (hereafter CO) Fort Union, Nov. 15, 1861; SO No. 125,
Hq., Dept. of N. M., July 16, 1862 ; SO No. 144, Hq., Dept. of N. M., Aug. 15, 1862,
NA, AC.

FORT UNION 41

important duty connected with the Santa Fe Trail. Military
protection of the Trail is a chapter in its history that re-
mains to be adequately explored. Historians have dealt with
early attempts to provide escorts from Missouri to the Ar-
kansas, but the part played by the garrison of Fort Union
has never been fully told. Although less dramatic, it spanned
15 years and proved far more effective.

No sooner had Fort Union been established than Colonel
Sumner, in August 1851, issued orders for Capt. James H.
Carleton to patrol the Cimarron Branch of the Trail between
Fort Union and the Arkansas. With his Company K, First
Dragoons, Carleton remained in the field until November 4.
So successful was he in preventing depredations on freight
trains by the Kiowas, Comanches, and Jicarilla Apaches that
he drew the same assignment the next year. During the sum-
mer of 1852 Company K twice marched to Fort Atkinson, at
the crossing of the Arkansas, and returned to Fort Union. 12

After 1852 there is no record of further patrolling such as
Carleton had performed for the remainder of the decade.
Rather, protection took the form of military escorts of the
Independence-Santa Fe Mail. 13 During the 1850's the Kiowas
and Comanches were in general friendly, or at least not ac-
tively hostile, and the war against the Jicarillas kept the tribe
busy in the mountains around Taos and Abiquiu. Neverthe-
less, escorts were furnished whenever officials of the stage
company or Post Office Department feared that danger ex-
isted. Late in 1857, as the result of a directive from the Secre-
tary of War, the Commanding Officer at Fort Union began
providing regular escorts for the mail.

The escort usually consisted of an officer and 20 to 40 men,
later of a sergeant and 15 to 20 men, who accompanied the

12. Sumner to Carleton, Aug. 1, 1851 ; SO No. 23, Hq., Ninth Mil. Dept., near
Albuquerque, March 28, 1852 ; SO No. 31, Hq., Ninth Mil. Dept., near Albuquerque,
May 3, 1852 ; Annual Returns, First Dragoons, 1851 and 1852, NA, AC. Sumner to AG
Roger Jones, Oct. 24, 1851, in Abel (ed.). Official Correspondence of James S. Calhoun,
416-18.

13. Monthly stage service was inaugurated between Independence and Santa Fe in
July 1850, with a contract let to carry the U. S. Mail. Throughout the 1850's service was
erratic, and as late as 1860 the commander of the Department of New Mexico complained
of the "great irregularity of the Mails." Col. T. T. Fauntleroy to Postmaster General,
Dec. 16, 1860, NA, AC ; LeRoy R. Hafen, The Overland Mail, 1849-1869 (Glendale, 1926),
70-73, briefly sketches the details of the Santa Fe Mail.

42 NEW MEXICO HISTORICAL REVIEW

stages to the Arkansas and returned to Fort Union with the
next west-bound mail. The soldiers, infantry or dismounted
horsemen, rode in wagons. This method had been adopted
by Col. John Garland, Department Commander, because it
afforded better defense in the event of attack and because of
the scarcity of grass, especially in winter, along the road
between the Canadian and the Arkansas. Even so, the mules
drawing the escort wagons frequently broke down and al-
ways had trouble keeping up with the mail coaches. The stage
company had relay stations with fresh animals on the Mora
and the Arkansas, but the army mules travelled over 600
miles, from Fort Union to the Arkansas and back, without
relief. So troublesome did this problem become that Colonel
Garland in March 1858 requested the Adjutant General of
the Army to have instructions issued to the mail company to
keep pace with the slower moving escort. 14

The necessity of furnishing escorts kept the Fort Union
garrison constantly below strength, and proved a serious
handicap to the post commander. Nevertheless, Colonel Gar-
land could report early in 1858 "that no mail has been lost
since my administration of this Military Department four
years and a half and that I have never failed to furnish
escorts whenever in my judgment they were deemed
necessary." 18

Probably as a result of these difficulties, and the apparent
friendliness of the Indians on the Cimarron Route, Garland
in May 1858 discontinued the escorts. In October 1859, how-
ever, the mail from Independence failed to arrive in Santa Fe
on schedule. Citizens and postal officials became so alarmed
that Col. B. L. E. Bonneville, Garland's successor, was in-
duced to order two officers and 75 men, virtually the entire
garrison of Fort Union, to escort the next eastbound stage
to the Arkansas. At Cottonwood Spring the mail and escort,
under Capt. R. M. Morris of the Regiment of Mounted Rifles,

14. Lt. & AAAG W. A. Nichols to Lt. Col. Philip St. George Cooke, March 12.
1854; Unsgd. (Fort Union) to Nichols, March 8, 1856; Nichols to CoL W. W. Loring.
Jan. 29, 1857 ; Col. B. L. E. Bonneville to AAG Lorenzo Thomas, Feb. 28, 1857 ; Loring
to Nichols, Jan. 25, 1858 ; Garland to AG Samuel Cooper, Jan. 30 & March 14, 1858 ;
Loring to Capt. & AQM L. C. Easton, March 9, 1858, NA, AC.

15. Garland to AG Samuel Cooper, Jan. 30, 1858, NA, AC.

FORT UNION 43

met the west-bound mail. It was accompanied by Col. Thomas
T. Fauntleroy and escort enroute to Santa Fe to replace Col-
onel Bonneville. Fauntleroy issued orders on the spot assum-
ing command of the Department of New Mexico (name for
the Ninth Military Department since 1853) and relieving
Captain Morris and half of his command of further escort
duty. At the same time he called upon the Adjutant General
for "particular instruction at the earliest moment" on the
subject of furnishing regular escorts for the mail. 15 *

No sooner had Fauntleroy reached Santa Fe, however,
than he authorized continued escorts. It was a fortunate
move, for on December 4, at Cold Spring in the Oklahoma
panhandle, 20 Kiowa warriors attacked the mail wagon and
its escort, slightly wounding one soldier. The Indians were
repulsed, but kept the troops pinned down with long-range
rifle fire for several hours. 16

Thereafter raiding Kiowas and Comanches became in-
creasingly active, and throughout the Civil War years travel
on the Cimarron Branch was a dangerous undertaking.
Fauntleroy reinforced Fort Union, and escorts regularly ac-
companied the mail. A new system was devised. Troops from
Fort Union escorted the east-bound mail about half way to the
Arkansas. There they met the west-bound mail under escort
by troops from Kansas. Each detachment then accompanied
the mail back to its home base. 17

Later in 1860 Fauntleroy authorized the Commanding
Officer at Fort Union, Lt. Col. George B. Crittenden, to seize
any opportunity offered to strike a blow at the Kiowas and
Comanches. In December Crittenden learned that a war party
was harassing traffic on the Mountain Branch about 70 miles
north of Fort Union. With 88 men of Companies D, H, K, and

15a. Lt. & AAAG J. D. Wilkins to Capt. R. M. Morris, Oct. 15, 17, and 18, 1859 ;
Wilkins to D. V. Whiting, Postmaster at Santa Fe, Oct. 16 and 17, 1859 ; Wilkins to
Lt. A. Jackson, Oct. 17, 1859 ; Bonneville to AAG Lorenzo Thomas, Oct. 17, 1859 ;
Bonneville to Gov. Abraham Rencher, Oct. 18, 1859 ; Fauntleroy to AG Samuel Cooper,
Oct. 25, 1859 ; Fauntleroy to Morris, Oct. 25, 1859 ; Fauntleroy to Thomas, Nov. 6, 1859,
NA, AC.

16. Lt. & AAAG J. D. Wilkins to Maj. J. S. Simonson, Nov. 14, 1859 ; SO No. 70,
Fort Union, Nov. 16, 1859; Simonson to Wilkins, Dec. 9, 1859; Fauntleroy to AAG
Lorenzo Thomas, Dec. 12, 1859, NA, AC.

17. Wilkins to Lt. D. Bell, Pawnee Fork, K. T., Jan. 3, 1860 ; Wilkins to Simonson,
Jan. 10, 1860; ibid.. Jan. (?), 1860; Jan. 28, 1860, NA, AC.

44 NEW MEXICO HISTORICAL REVIEW

E, Regiment of Mounted Rifles, he marched up the Trail. The
Indians, however, had moved east and were preparing to
attack traffic on the Cimarron Branch. The Mounted Riflemen
followed their trail night and day and, on January 2, 1861,
surprised a villiage of 175 Kiowa and Comanche lodges on the
Cimarron River 10 miles north of Cold Spring. The Indians
were driven from their camp with a loss of 10 killed and an
unknown number wounded. Crittenden had three men
wounded. The troops destroyed the village and its contents
and returned to Fort Union with 40 captured horses. 18

It is noteworthy that, throughout the decade of the 1850's,
there is no record of military detachments assigned to escort
freight caravans. Except for Carleton's operations in 1851
and 1852, which were designed to safeguard all traffic simply
by the presence of troops on the Trail, all escorts were of the
Independence-Santa Fe Mail. To the extent that these escorts
advertised to the Indians the proximity of soldiers, they in-
directly protected freight trains. The freighters, however,
understood the conditions of the trail and organized for their
own protection. They consequently felt no need of military
protection and made no demand for such service. 19 The pic-
ture changes in the 1860's. The mounting Indian menace, the
fear of Confederate attacks on freight caravans, and the vital
need of assuring a continuous flow of provisions to Union
forces in New Mexico led to escorts of freight trains on the
Santa Fe Trail.

In June 1861 Col. Edward R. S. Canby, who had just
assumed command in New Mexico, promptly took two steps
to protect the Santa Fe Trail. Fearful of a Confederate move
against his lines of supply and communication, he instructed
Maj. William Chapman at Fort Union to organize parties of
Mexican or Indian spies to watch the Cimarron Branch and
the road from Fort Smith via the Canadian River to Anton
Chico and Santa Fe. Masquerading as hunters or traders,
they were to operate well south of the roads and give timely

18. SO No. 103, Fort Union, Dec. 26, 1860; Crittenden to AAAG at Santa Fe,
Jan. 11, 1861 ; Fauntleroy to AAG Lorenzo Thomas, Jan. 12, 1861, NA, AC.

19. Cf. Steere, Economic and Military History, 34-35.

FORT UNION 45

warning of Confederate movements. By June 25 Chapman
had employed nine New Mexicans for this duty. 20

At the same time Canby ordered Capt. Thomas Duncan at
Fort Union to lead 100 Mounted Riflemen and two companies
of recently organized New Mexico Volunteers to the crossing
of the Arkansas to escort freight trains to Fort Union. In
August he sent a squadron of Mounted Rifles to Fort Wise,
on the Arkansas near the site of Bent's Fort, to strengthen
that post and help protect trains using the Mountain Branch.
In the same month Lt. Col. Christopher "Kit" Carson marched
four companies of New Mexico Volunteers to the Arkansas
to bring in trains using the Cimarron Route. 21

Patrols and escorts carried out similar missions through-
out the winter of 1861 and summer of 1862. In August 1862
a system of patrols was inaugurated on the Mountain Branch,
troops from Fort Union covering the Trail to Raton Pass,
troops from Fort Lyon (formerly Wise) from the pass to that
fort. A force of the First Colorado Volunteers was ordered to
establish a temporary camp on the Mountain Route midway
between Forts Wise and Union and give protection to freight
trains and mail coaches. 22

That troops were assigned to such duty during 1861 and
1862 reflects the importance Canby attached to keeping open
the Santa Fe Trail. These were the critical Civil War years in
New Mexico. Texans under Lt. Col. John R. Baylor occupied
southern New Mexico in the summer of 1861, and the Con-
federate brigade of Brig. Gen. Henry H. Sibley carried the
invasion north to Albuquerque and Santa Fe during the first
four months of 1862. Battles were fought at Valverde in Feb-
ruary and Glorieta Pass in March before the Texans with-
drew from the Territory. At the same time Navahos and

20. Lt. & AAAG A. L. Anderson to Chapman, June 19, 1861, NA, AC. Notation on
back lists names of New Mexican spies employed by Chapman.

21. Anderson to CO Fort Union, June 30, 1861, War of the Rebellion: Official Rec-
ords of the Union and Confederate Armies, Ser. I, Vol. IV, 49 ; Canby to Chapman,
Aug. 15, 1861 ; Chapman to Col. Ceran St. Vrain, First New Mexico Volunteers, Aug. 18,
1861 ; Chapman to Anderson, Aug. 22, 1861, NA, AC.

22. Lt. & AAAG W. J. L. Nicodemus to CO Fort Union, Dec. 8, 1861 ; Canby to
Col. J. M. Chivington, June 30, 1862 ; Chapman to CO Fort Union, July 2, 1862 ; Canby
to AAAG Dept. of Kansas, July 3, 1862 ; Capt. & AAAG Gurden Chapin to Col. J. H.
Leavenworth, Aug. 7, 1862 ; Chapin to CO Fort Union, Aug. 9, 1862, NA, AC.

46 NEW MEXICO HISTORICAL REVIEW

Mescalero Apaches were raiding settlements throughout New
Mexico. Still, these demands did not prevent Canby from
detaching troops to guard the Santa Fe Trail.

When Canby went east to other duty in September 1862,
Brig. Gen. James H. Carleton, who had led the California
Column to New Mexico, took command of the department and
retained it until the end of the war. He appreciated the im-
portance of the Santa Fe Trail and, from his experience in
patrolling it in 1851 and 1852, was familiar with the problems
involved in its protection. He believed that troops should be
temporarily stationed on the most dangerous section of the
Trail, and recommended to the Adjutant General in May and
again in July 1863 that four companies be placed at Cold
Spring and four at Cimarron Spring. 23

This plan called for reinforcements and seems not to have
been adopted until 1864, by which time the plains were in
the throes of a disastrous Indian uprising, with Kiowas, Co-
manches, and Cheyennes attacking trains between the Ar-
kansas and Fort Union. In the summer of 1864 Carleton
stationed 50 cavalrymen and 50 infantrymen at the crossing
of the Arkansas, an equal force at Lower Cimarron Springs,
and 50 cavalrymen and 30 infantrymen at Upper Cimarron
Springs. He also sent one company to Fort Lyon and one to
Gray's Ranch, on the Purgatory River in Colorado, to police
the Mountain Route. These troops, California and New Mex-
ico Volunteers, carried rations for 60 days. 24

Carleton next decided to strike at the home country of the
Indians who were raiding on the Santa Fe Trail. Late in No-
vember 1864 he sent Col. Kit Carson and the First New Mex-
ico Cavalry, fresh from victory over the Navahos, into the
Texas panhandle, heart of the Kiowa-Comanche country. On
November 26 the troops attacked a large camp of Kiowas
on the Canadian River near the ruins of William Bent's old
trading post. Joined by Comanches, the Kiowas counterat-

23. Carleton to AG Lorenzo Thomas, May 10, 1863, July 14, 1863, in U. S. Cong.,
Condition of the Indian Tribes: Report of the Joint Special Committee Appointed Under
Resolution of March S, 1865 (Washington, 1867), 109-10.

24. Carleton to Capt. E. H. Bergmann, Aug. 22, 1864 ; Carleton to Thomas, Aug. 27
and 29, 1864 ; SO No. 32, Dept. of N. M., Aug. 20, 1864 ; SO No. 34, Aug. 28, 1864, in
ibid., 191-95, 241-42.

FORT UNION 47

tacked and besieged Carson in the ruins. The battle of Adobe
Walls raged all day, but mountain howitzers kept the Indians
at bay. At dusk the troops burned the Kiowa village and
withdrew. 25

Meanwhile, General Carleton made preparations for
guarding the Trail during the approaching travel season. He
had hoped to establish temporary camps during the sum-
mer of 1865 at Lower Cimarron Springs, Cold Spring, Rabbit
Ear Creek and Whetstone Creek, 26 but, probably because of
insufficient men, modified this plan. Instead, on February 8,
1865, he published the following notice: 27

To the people : :

Owing to Indian difficulties upon the roads leading from
New Mexico to the States, a company of troops will leave Fort
Union, New Mexico, for Fort Lamed, Kansas, on the first and
fifteenth of every month, until further orders, commencing on
the first day of March, 1865. The first company will go by the
Raton mountain route, the second by the Cimarron route, and
so on, alternately. The merchants and others who wish to send
trains in after goods can assemble their trains at such points
near Fort Union as may be desired by them, so as to have the
protection of these periodical escorts, if such be their wish. Ar-
rangements will be made with Major General Curtis, command-
ing the department of Kansas, so as to send these companies
back from Fort Larned at such times as may best promote the
interests and safety of all who may have trains upon the road
coming in this direction.

By command of General Carleton :

Ben. C. Cutler,

Assistant Adjutant General.

Carleton provided these escorts for two months, but by
May all the troops that could be spared were in the field, and
he had to discontinue the service. At the same time, however,
he ordered Col. Kit Carson, with two companies of the First
New Mexico Cavalry and a company of California Volun-
teers, to leave Fort Union on May 20 and establish a canton-

25. R. N. Richardson, The Comanche Barrier to South Plains Settlement (Glendale,
1933), 285-87 ; idem., "The Comanche Indians and the Fight at Adobe Walls," Panhandle-
Plains Historical Review, IV (1931) ; C. Boone McClure (ed.), "The Battle of Adobe
Walls, 1864," ibid., XXI (1948).

26. Carleton to Maj. Gen. S. R. Curtis, Jan. 24, 1865, Condition of the Indian Tribes,
215-16.

27. Reproduced in ibid., 243.

48 NEW MEXICO HISTORICAL REVIEW

ment at Cedar Bluff or Cold Spring, on the Cimarron Route.
Carson was to occupy this camp until November 1865 and
protect trains passing to and from the States. He was also
to have a talk with the Kiowa, Comanche, and Cheyenne
chiefs. "Tell them this," advised the General. "They must not
think to stop the commerce of the plains, nor must they
imagine that we are going to keep up escorts with trains. We
do this now until we learn whether they will behave or not.
If they will not, we will end the matter by a war which will
remove any further necessity for escorts." 28

Near Cedar Spring Carson's men built Camp Nichols, a
fort consisting of stone officers' quarters and walled tents sur-
rounded by stone breastworks banked with earth. The first
escort left Camp Nichols on June 19 and accompanied a cara-
van of 70 wagons to Fort Larned. Carson had no opportunity
to convey Carleton's sentiments to the hostile chiefs, for he
was almost immediately called to Santa Fe to testify before
a joint congressional committee investigating Indian affairs.
Maj. Albert H. Pfeiffer, his second-in-command, remained to
furnish escorts to caravans for the remainder of the season.
Camp Nichols was presumably abandoned in November 1865
as planned, for Col. James F. Meline found it in ruins the fol-
lowing summer. 29

Carson's expedition of 1865 marked the end of escort
service on a significant scale by troops from Fort Union. The
railroad moving west into Kansas in 1866-67 caused traffic on
the Santa Fe Trail to shift increasingly to the Mountain
Branch. The Army mounted campaigns against the Kiowas,
Comanches, and Cheyennes in 1868-69 and again in 1874-75,
but not in the locale of the Santa Fe Trail and not primarily
because of depredations on the Trail. These campaigns
crushed the power of the tribes on the southern plains. Soon
afterward, the railroad advanced through Raton Pass into
New Mexico. In 1880 the first engine steamed into Lamy, sta-
tion for Santa Fe, and the Santa Fe Trail passed into history.

28. Carleton to Carson, May 4, May 8, 1865 ; SO No. 15, Hq., Dept. of N. M., May 7,
1865, in ibid., 225-26, 245.

29. E. L. Sabin, Kit Carson Days, 1809-1868 (2 v., New York, 1935), II, 751-55;
Aurora Hunt, The Army of the Pacific, 1860-1868 (Glendale, 1951), 163-65; James F.
Meline, Two Thousand Miles on Horseback ... in the Year 1866 (New York, 1867), 269.

SOLOMON PERRY SUBLETTE: MOUNTAIN MAN

OF THE FORTIES

i

By JOHN E. SUNDER*

>T-IHREE weary Mountain Men, leading a small string of pack
JL mules, joined a larger group of travelers bedding down in
the snow near the bank of El Rio de las Animas. Tall, rugged
Solomon Perry Sublette and his two "clever companions," Bill
Garmon and Fred Smith, carried government express dis-
patches to Taos and Santa Fe. The other adventurers were
several days out of Bent's Fort on the Arkansas bound for
northern New Mexico, determined to "kill and scalp" anyone
party to the Taos rising and recent murder of Governor
Charles Bent. The year 1847 was unpropitious for American
authority in New Mexico, and the men encamped near the
Purgatory that wintry night, February 11, slept in dangerous
territory. 1

Lurking Indians, biting wind and blistering sun were
Western elements all Mountain Men endured, and "Sol" Sub-
lette was an old hand who could take whatever nature pro-
vided. For at least nine years he had wandered the plains and
mountains from Missouri to California, Idaho to the South-
west, trapping, trading, exploring, never marrying, never set-
tling down for more than a few months. His Western exploits
were common Sublette family fare. At thirty-two he was the
youngest of five brothers. William, the oldest, had died two
years earlier after twenty years of Western activity had
died a wealthy, highly respected Missourian. Milton was
buried at Ft. Laramie. Pinckney had perished in an Indian
engagement. Only Andrew, several years Solomon's senior,
was alive, living in Missouri, preparing to serve in the Mexi-
can War. 2

* The University of Texas.

1. Lewis H. Garrard, Wah-To-Yah And the Taos Trail (Norman, 1955), pp. 123,
137; Ralph P. Bieber (ed.), Wah-To-Yah And the Taos Trail (Glendale, 1938), pp. 200-
201.

2. File of Andrew W. Sublette, Capt. U. S. A., 1846-1848, Records of the Adjutant
General's Office, Record Group No. 94, MSS., National Archives ; Daily Missouri Repub-
lican (St. Louis), August 1, 1845; Daily Picayune (New Orleans), December 15, 1843;
List of Persons killed in the Fur Trade, Sublette MSS., 1819-1860, Missouri Historical
Society, St. Louis (Hereafter cited: Sublette MSS).

49

50 NEW MEXICO HISTORICAL REVIEW

All of the brothers were conditioned to a hardy outdoor
existence by boyhood years in hilly, sparsely-inhabited coun-
try. Solomon, born in Lincoln County, Kentucky, shortly after
the War of 1812, was named for a maternal uncle, Solomon
Whitley, and quite possibly for Oliver Hazard Perry, naval
hero of the Battle of Lake Erie. Phillip A. Sublette, Solomon's
father, prospered as a tavern owner, part-time farmer, land
speculator and county officeholder. Isabella Whitley, Solo-
mon's mother, was the second oldest daughter of Colonel Wil-
liam Whitley, the renowned Indian fighter and lord of an
imposing brick home overlooking the Wilderness Road in Lin-
coln County, Kentucky. 3

The postwar trans-Mississippi land boom engulfed the
Sublettes in 1817 and drew Phillip, Isabella and their children
from Kentucky across the booming Old Northwest to the
French settlement at St. Charles, Missouri Territory. Babe-
in-arms Solomon was bundled up with the family property
and carried west. 4 At St. Charles his parents returned to
tavern-keeping, operated a ferry for a short time and helped
Americanize the entrenched French culture of their newly-
adopted town. Settlers flocked through the community; fur
traders floated past the levee bound for the rich, virgin trap-
ping regions along the Upper Missouri ; and Solomon's new
world was a small child's-eye-view of wagon wheels, plod-
ding oxen, bemoccasined Indian traders and a Territory in
transition.

Tragedy came early in his life and stayed late. His par-

3. Solomon's actual year of birth is conjectural. The granite shaft marking the
Sublette burial ground in Bellefontaine Cemetery, St. Louis, states that he was forty-two
years old at the time of his death, August 31, 1857. Stella M. Drumm, who worked for
many years on the Sublette Papers in the Missouri Historical Society, St. Louis, accepted
1816 as his date of birth. Records in the Probate Court, St. Charles, Missouri, place him
last in the chronological list of Sublette heirs. The frequently accepted statement that
Pinckney W. Sublette was the youngest of the five Sublette brothers seems to be
inaccurate

For information on the Sublette-Whitley family see the archives of Lincoln and
Pulaski counties, Kentucky, 1797-1826. Also see the Lincoln and Pulaski county tax
lists, at the Kentucky Historical Society, for the same period. The Draper Collection of
Kentucky Manuscripts (Microfilms of the Draper Collection in the State Historical
Society of Wisconsin), 1775-1845, now at the Filson Club, Louisville, contains addi-
tional valuable information.

4. St. Charles County Census Record, 1817, MS., St. Charles County Court, St.
Charles, Missouri.

MOUNTAIN MAN 51

ents died of illnesses modern medicine might have cured, and
he and his young sisters and brothers were entrusted to close
relatives. William and Milton, the older boys, entered the fur
trade, since economic conditions after the Panic of 1819 were
uninviting in St. Charles. Solomon was taken by relatives who
had followed the Sublettes to Missouri. 5 He matured during
the eighteen-twenties and early thirties matured and
basked in the reflected light cast by his remarkable brothers.
While he received a modest education and learned to ride,
shoot and understand the countryside, they exploited the far
western fur potential. Since William was the oldest brother
and financially the most successful, he took charge of Solo-
mon's career and carefully provided for him in his estate. 6

In 1836 Solomon turned twenty-one. William offered to
establish him in business. At first Solomon "could not make
up his mind what course to pursue," but through William's
positive suggestions decided finally to open a clothing store
at Independence. The choice was sound: Independence was
the outfitting point for both the Santa Fe and Oregon trails,
times were good and the Sublettes had excellent business con-
tacts in western Missouri. Robert Campbell, William's part-
ner, then in the East, purchased an expensive outfit of shoes,
hats, boots and Indian goods for the prospective store. While
Campbell gathered the order, Solomon, to gain experience,
clerked at Smith's St. Louis clothing shop. 7

After a month's work behind the counter at Smith's store,
Solomon traveled to Independence "well reconciled and anx-
ious" to secure an advantageous location for his shop and to
prove to his family his business ability. He found a desirable
location, opened his doors in mid-April and six months later
granted William a power of attorney. Business was good the
first year, seemed even better the second and continued pros-
perous into the third. He restocked items cigars, shaving

5. For extensive information on the Sublette-Whitley family in St. Charles see the
St. Charles County archives, 1817-1827. The archives of Callaway County, Missouri, con-
tain many references to the McKinney family.

6. Will of William L. Sublette, 1831, Sublette MSS.

7. W. L. Sublette to Robert Campbell, January 4, 12, 30, February 9, April 20,
1836, ibid.

52 NEW MEXICO HISTORICAL REVIEW

boxes, shoes and socks purchased from Independence whole-
salers, yet he did not repay William for the greater part of his
original supply. 8

The Panic of 1837 set in motion a depression wave which
bit by bit surged westward, bringing trying times to Missis-
sippi Valley merchants. Solomon grew restless with a shop-
keeper's existence. His St. Louis companions dared him to
"throw away [his] . . . old hats and coats" and return to
mint juleps and the ladies. Since he disliked keeping shop, he
closed his door, sold William his "negro man Cato," whom he
had purchased in Independence, and substituted parties and
cards for a merchant's life. 9

During the spring and early summer of 1838 he visited
Arkansas and Louisiana and sold a jack and several mules
at Natchitoches. He liked stock-trading enough to return to
St. Louis where William agreed to support his new equestrian
interest. With a "drove of horses" in hand, Solomon set out
for New Orleans and the "Southern Country." His success
was very limited, however, in fact too limited to be promising,
and he dashed to St. Louis, leaving horses and mules at Wash-
ington, Arkansas, to be sold by a friend. 10

As might be expected he did not return to Arkansas, but
parted company with William in St. Louis, hurried to Inde-
pendence and, by late spring, 1839, was on his way to Santa
Fe. 11 William had spent over three hundred dollars financing
his young brother's unproductive southern ventures. Solo-
mon's outstanding debt to William was well over three thou-
sand dollars by that time, although Sublette and Campbell
held him responsible for only his clothing store accounts. 12

In the West, Solomon criss-crossed the countryside be-

8. S. P. Sublette Power of Attorney to W. L. Sublette, October 17, 1836, ibid.;
Bill of J. Basey( ?) to S. P. Sublette, 1837, ibid.

9. Note of S. P. Sublette to Sublette and Campbell, December 1, 1838, t'btd.; I. T.
Peck to S. Sublette, June 28, 1836, ibid.; Bill of Sale from S. Sublette to W. L. Sublette,
July 18, 1838, ibid.

10. Sublette and Campbell to W. D. Stewart, February 8, 1839, ibid.; J. Walsh to
S. T. McAllister, February 8, 1839, ibid.: S. P. Sublette to T. Sharp, May 2, 1838, ibid.;
Order of S. P. to W. L. Sublette on T. Sharp for R. Guin, 1839, ibid.; J. S. Burt to W.
L. Sublette, December 9, 1839, t'btd.; S. P. Sublette to John Chinowth(?), May 8,
1839, ibid.

11. S. P. to W. L. Sublette, May 1. 1839, ibid.; W. L. Sublette to T. Sharp, May 14,
1839, ibid.

12. Balance Sheet from Sublette and Campbell Ledger, December 1, 1842, ibid.

MOUNTAIN MAN 53

tween Santa Fe and Bent's Fort. For three years he trapped,
traded and lived off the land, perhaps working closely with
Louis Vasquez and Andrew Sublette, then trading on the
Upper Platte and Arkansas. The termination of their part-
nership possibly influenced his decision to return to Missouri
to "get some assistance." From Taos he moved northeastward
to Bent's Fort, joined a small party under Joseph Williams
returning from Oregon and was in Independence late in Octo-
ber, 1842. 13

Undecided as usual about his future, he rejected a friend's
proposal that he return to the Southwest and offer his services
to the Texas Republic. Instead, he lingered in Independence
during early November, 1842, investigating the produce mar-
ket for William. Solomon "had no means" to do otherwise and
intimated that Andrew had broken an old, though question-
able, promise to assist him financially. William was in western
Missouri on business later in the month, met Solomon, paid
at least one of his outstanding bills and accompanied him east-
ward to a family reunion at the large Sublette farm Sulphur
Springs in St. Louis County. 14

Spring arrived late ; its days filled with grief and frenzied
activity. Sophronia, the last of three Sublette sisters, was ill
during the winter and died suddenly in April. 15 William pre-
pared to join Sir William Drummond Stewart and a large
group of friends in a "pleasure" trip to the valley of Green
River ; Andrew was in poor health ; and the Hereford family,
new lessees of resort facilities at Sulphur Springs, were busy
with management details. Solomon decided to accompany Wil-
liam to the Green and was sent to western Missouri to collect
debts owed Sublette and Campbell and to purchase livestock
for the expedition. In May he joined William's party near
Independence. 16

13. S. P. to W. L. Sublette, October 29, 1842, ibid.; Joseph Williams, Narrative of
a Tour from the State of Indiana to the Oregon Territory in the Years 1841-42 (New
York, 1921), pp. 86, 88.

14. S. P. to W. L. Sublette, October 31, November 28, 1842, Sublette MSS. ; A. W.
to W. L. Sublette, December 9, 21, 1842, ibid.; Receipts of S. Noland(?) and Samuel
C. Owens to S. P. Sublette, October 29, December 13, 1842, ibid.

15. Daily Missouri Republican (St. Louis), April 21, 1843.

16. Stella M. Drumm and Isaac H. Lionberger (eds. ), "Correspondence of Robert
Campbell 1834-1845," Glimpses of the Past, VII (January- June, 1941), 50, 53, 55-56;
Instructions for S. P. Sublette from Sublette and Campbell, 1843, Sublette MSS.

54 NEW MEXICO HISTORICAL REVIEW

The Stewart-Sublette group, a bit in advance of a large
Oregon-bound contingent of settlers, headed across the
muddy prairies towards the Platte. Solomon took charge of a
small outfit under Jesuit fathers Peter De Vos and Adrian
Hoecken, traveling with the pleasure party to Flathead In-
dian missionary work. From eastern Kansas to Ft. Laramie
the combined expedition frolicked across the plains on clear,
sunny days and grumbled in the rain. They celebrated the
Fourth of July on the Platte and a few days later rolled onto
Laramie plain. 17

Solomon remained at the fort when the expedition left on
July 8 remained to erect a more Christian monument over
his brother Milton Sublette's last resting place. The old, crude
wooden cross was broken, badly in need of repairs. 18 He spent
most of the summer at or near Ft. Laramie and in the autumn
took a supply of Indian trade goods down to the South Platte
and Upper Arkansas. Meanwhile, in November William re-
turned to St. Louis, pleased with his trip, yet in failing health.
On New Year's Day, 1844, he drew up a new will, bequeath-
ing most of his valuable property to Andrew, Solomon and
Frances S. Hereford, his "estimed [sic'] female friend" and
future wife. 19

William perhaps responsible for financing Solomon's
outfit to the Upper Arkansas received frequent letters dur-
ing 1844 from his younger brother. Solomon reported in the
spring that "trade is a ragin [sic"] very high there is a plenty
of goods and very few robes." The Indians had "stolled [his]
horse," another horse had distemper and, he added, that on
one occasion he walked fifty miles from an Indian village to
his camp for lack of proper transportation. Trade to Santa
Fe was hampered by political difficulties, but he remarked
to friends that he might spend the summer in Spanish country

17. M. C. Field Diary of 1843, Entries of June and July, MSS., Missouri Historical
Society. Also see the M. C. Field sketches published in the Daily Picayune (New Or-
leans), 1843, and reproduced in Kate L. Gregg and John F. McDermott (eds. ), Prairie
and Mountain Sketches, Norman, 1957.

18. Daily Picayune (New Orleans), December IB, 1843; M. C. Field Diary of 1843,
Entry of July 5. MSS., Missouri Historical Society ; Gregg and McDermott, op. cit., p. 78.

19. S. P. to W. L. Sublette, February 2, 1844, Sublette MSS. ; Last Will and Testa-
ment of W. L. Sublette, January 1, 1844, ibid.

MOUNTAIN MAN 55

and return to the Arkansas later in the year. He suggested
that William join him in the mountains for the summer f or
his health, not for trade, since trade continued erratic. Unless
he could "get some business" in St. Louis, Solomon intended
to remain where he was in the West. 20

Instead of going to Santa Fe for the summer he plunged
into the Colorado Rockies to hunt sheep and antelopes to send
to William's farm. In early October he reached Ft. Pueblo,
having completed his hunt, and on the twentieth of the month
was at Taos to lay in winter provisions. He had not heard
from William in nearly a year and a half and feared that his
older brother might be quite angry over unpaid debts. An-
drew, who had returned to the West that year for his health,
joined Solomon, on the South Platte or at Bent's Fort, and
passed the time with him in Taos. Solomon envied Andrew's
farming experience the "happiest life that a man can lead"
but Andrew, freed by the mountain air from his persistent
cough, did not intend to return permanently to the Sublette
farm. 21

The two brothers were back on the South Platte before
winter made travel difficult. As soon as the snow cleared in
March, Solomon went to Taos for provisions and returned
to meet Andrew who was following the buffalo along the Ar-
kansas. Both had considered a jaunt to California, but An-
drew decided to return to Missouri that summer. Solomon
sent William "10 or 12 pounds of Beaver and Forty Dollars"
to settle some of his debts and turned westward to pick up
the California Trail. His brother-in-law, Grove Cook, whom
Sophronia had divorced two years before her death, was in
California and Solomon intended possibly to "establish him-
self [there] when he [liked] the Country. . . ," 22

20. S. P. to W. L. Sublette, February 2, April 18, May 5, 1844, ibid. Solomon may
have been employed by Bent and St. Vrain in the years 1843-1845. See Harrison C.
Dale, "A Fragmentary Journal of William L. Sublette," Mississippi Valley Historical
Review, I No. 1 (June, 1919), 105.

21. A. W. to W. L. Sublette, October 20, 1844, Sublette MSS. ; Receipt of S. P.
Sublette at Fort Pueblo, October 9, 1844, ibid; S. P. to W. L. Sublette, May 5, October 20,
1844, and S. P. to A. W. Sublette, May 5, 1844, ibid.

22. A. W. to W. L. Sublette, March 3, April 6, 1845, ibid.; George P. Hammond
(ed.), The Larkin Papers (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1953), IV, p. 10.

56 NEW MEXICO HISTORICAL REVIEW

He and a party of fifteen crossed rapidly to California,
passing at least two groups of emigrants along the way. On
October 7, Solomon reached New Helvetia (Sutter's Fort)
and was welcomed by Sutter himself who concluded that the
youngest Sublette was "a Man of considerable property."
Either Sutter was deceived or Solomon had profited greatly
during his months between Taos and the South Platte. He
and some of his party moved to Yerba Buena (San Fran-
cisco) where they celebrated the holidays in high style. Late
on Christmas Eve they "made a great hurahing" outside the
door of William A. Leidesdorff, one of the more prominent
local merchants. Later that night Solomon, no doubt in his
cups, returned to abuse the merchant "shamefully, telling
him that he had struck terror through all the towns he had
been at, and would strike terror through [him] before he left
[that] town." Then with a flourish he tossed two large stones
on Leidesdorff' s adobe bungalow roof and went his happy
way! 23

Seven months in California convinced Solomon that his
future was not on the Pacific Coast. He surveyed possibilities
in land and livestock, probably visited Grove Cook and his
new bride, Rebecca Kelsey Cook, either at their Santa Cruz
home or at Sutter's Fort, and decided to return to Missouri.
Possibly he had news of William's death the previous July
and believed he should participate in the estate settlement.
William had dictated a new will the day before his death,
designating Robert Campbell and Andrew as executors. Solo-
mon was granted considerable real and personal property.
During the winter, while he abused merchants, his brother's
will was in probate. 24

Late in May Solomon and ten others, under hire as herds-
men to Joseph Reddeford Walker, drove eighty mules and
horses from Pueblo de Los Angeles eastward over Walker

23. Hammond (ed.), op. cit., pp. 10, 150; H. H. Bancroft, The Works of Hubert
Howe Bancroft (San Francisco, 1886), XXI, pp. 577-578 ; New Helvetia Diary of Event*
from 1845-48 (San Francisco, 1939), pp. 5-6.

24. J. A. Sutter to S. P. Sublette, December 22, 1845, Sublette MSS. ; Last Will and
Testament of W. L. Sublette, July 22, 1845, ibid. See also Record of Wills C, 1840-1850,
pp. 181-182, MSS., St. Louis Probate Court, St. Louis. For the story of Solomon's Cali-
fornia venture see Doyce B. Nunis, Jr., "The Enigma of the Sublette Overland Party,
1845," Pacific Historical Review, XXVIII No. 4 (November, 1959), 331-349.

MOUNTAIN MAN 57

Pass through the Sierras to the Humboldt and on to Ft. Hall.
Walker rested his herd at the fort, but Solomon and three
friends pushed on to Ft. Bridger and Ft. Laramie. Since pro-
visions were low at Laramie and the neighboring Sioux were
touchy, Solomon's tiny party turned south along the front
range and reached Bent's Fort in mid-August. There they
joined a party heading east along the Santa Fe Trail. Three
weeks later Solomon rode into Weston, Missouri, and took
passage on the steamboat Little Missouri for St. Louis, arriv-
ing about September 10. 25

Andrew, Frances, and Solomon worked steadily through-
out the autumn on pressing items in William's estate. Solo-
mon inherited a smaU herd of prize cattle ; wearing apparel ;
William's "largest double barrel gun" ; one-half of William's
land in Cole County, Missouri, including town lots in Jeffer-
son City ; and approximately one-fourth of his brother's seven
hundred acres of improved St. Louis County land. By the will
he was freed of all debts with the exception of a small sum
due Robert Campbell. 26

The estate brought Solomon only temporary security ; he
was soon in debt and his spirit roamed westward. Despite a
siege of ill health, he accepted an appointment to carry gov-
ernment dispatches to Taos and Santa Fe not an enviable
duty beginning late in 1846. From Ft. Leavenworth, the day
before departure, he wrote Frances that her presence in St.
Louis the previous autumn brought him great happiness.
"You may look for my return in due time," he promised, and
asked her to discount any rumors she might hear of his death.
He intended fully to return, court and win his brother's at-
tractive widow. 27

Throughout January and early February, 1847, Solomon's
small party tramped over heavy snow across Indian country
along the Arkansas to Bent's Fort. Their mules subsisted on
ice-encrusted dry grass and strips of cottonwood bark. At
Bent's Fort they heard of the Taos rising, and Solomon "made

25. Daily Missouri Republican (St. Louis), September 11, 1846; Francis Parkman,
The Oregon Trail (Garden City, 1946), pp. 242-243, 264.

26. Last Will and Testament of W. L. Sublette, July 22, 1845, Sublette MSS. ;
File of Estate of William L. Sublette, File 2052, MSS., St. Louis Probate Court.

27. S. P. to F. S. Sublette, January 7, 1847, Sublette MSS.

58 NEW MEXICO HISTORICAL REVIEW

application . . . for an additional force" which he was to
meet south of the Fort. The force materialized unequipped,
and Solomon holed up near the Purgatory to wait out the
insurrection. Fortunately, he learned from a traveler that the
rising was subdued. Reaching Taos, he delivered a precious
packet of dispatches to Colonel Sterling Price and, after a
visit to Santa Fe, headed home late in March. Two months
later he reached Ft. Leavenworth. 28

Before leaving for the Southwest he petitioned Senator
Thomas Hart Benton of Missouri for "some . . . appoint-
ment in the Indian country." Solomon had in mind specifically
an Indian agency on the Missouri. He reminded Senator Ben-
ton of his years of residence "amongst the tribes and his
service in California," which suggests that Solomon played
a part in California politics during the winter of 1845-46.
The Senator, an old friend of William Subletted, promised
help and a few months after Solomon's return from Santa
Fe offered him the agency for the "United tribe of Sacs &
Foxes of the Mississippi." Solomon accepted, at a yearly sal-
ary of fifteen hundred dollars, and was assigned through
Thomas A. Harvey, Superintendent of Indian Affairs at St.
Louis and an old Sublette family political adversary. 29

His appointment was greeted by the press with "general
satisfaction" and the expectation of efficiency. Certainly he
possessed enough experience to undertake the job, yet in less
than a year he resigned. Writing to the Office of Indian Af-
fairs on April 18, 1848, he relinquished his position. He was
compelled to do so through "continued sickness," he said, but
the possibility remains that politics, the instability of his
personality, new business prospects and his intention to take
Frances as his wife were of greater consequence. 30 Frances,
who had "rather bad luck" with the Sublette farm during the
winter, had accepted Solomon's proposal. 31

28. Ibid., May 1, 1847, ibid. This letter is reproduced in Bieber (ed.), op. eit., p. 200.

29. S. P. Sublette to Sen. T. H. Benton, December 11, 16, 1846, Sublette MSS. ;
U. S. War Department to S. P. Sublette, October 21, 1847, ibid.

30. S. P. Sublette to Col. W. Medill, April 18, 1848, ibid.; Jefferson Inquirer (Jef-
ferson City), November 6, 1847.

31. Theresa Hereford to S. P. Sublette, January 30-February 1, 1848, Sublette MSS. ;
S. P. to F. S. Sublette, April 28, 1848, tbtd.

MOUNTAIN MAN 59

Solomon joined Frances at Independence and on May 21,
1848, married her in a quiet ceremony at the Southern Meth-
odist Episcopal Church. They were "busily engaged prepar-
ing to leave" for California and had placed friends in charge
of the Sublette farm and William's unsettled estate. By June
1, they were ready to depart ; then, at the last minute, can-
celled their plans. Frances was seriously ill. Solomon re-
mained at her side until she recovered partially, but
sufficiently to permit him to enter the Santa Fe trade. 32

Frances' brother, Thomas Hereford, had persuaded Solo-
mon to join him and transport an expensive line of merchan-
dise to Santa Fe. Solomon agreed to the business proposal
and made the overland crossing to New Mexico, although he
"never wanted to commence the trade." In the autumn of 1848
he returned briefly to St. Louis on a "pleasure trip," but was
again in Santa Fe by mid-May of 1849. There he learned that
his southwestern affairs were disordered and that his goods
were at market in Mexico.

He joined his partner in Chihuahua where dull business
followed unpromising prices. After selling their carryalls and
a few draught animals, the partners awaited impatiently the
arrival of new goods. Hereford offered to sell out to Solomon,
but Solomon refused and agreed instead to a mutual dissolu-
tion of partnership. He was tired of the calico trade and was
anxious to be in Missouri before winter. While Hereford re-
mained in Chihuahua to settle business accounts and gather
a herd of mules to drive to California, Solomon returned to
a mortgaged home at Sulphur Springs. 33

He reached St. Louis possibly in time for the birth of Solo-
mon Perry, Jr., his first child, shortly before Christmas. The
following spring he made a short business trip to New Or-
leans and, in his absence, his son's health grew precarious and
he arrived home to find him near death. The boy died of a

82. Record 1, 2 & 3, p. 173, MSS., Jackson County Recorder of Deeds Office, Inde-
pendence, Missouri ; S. P. to F. S. Sublette, April 28, 1848, April 21, 1849, Sublette MSS. ;
F. S. Sublette to M. Tarver, May 27, 1848, ibid. ; Memorandum of Agreement with George
Glass, June 6, 1848, ibid.

33. S. P. to F. S. Sublette, September 8, 1849, ibid.; S. P. Sublette to M. Tarver,
May 29, 1849, ibid.; T. A. Hereford to S. P. Sublette, March 9, 1850, ibid.

60 NEW MEXICO HISTORICAL REVIEW

persistent cough possibly consumption on April 24, and
was interred at the Sublette burial ground on the farm. 34

There were few bright spots in Solomon's later years. He
and Frances attempted to make a living from the soil, but
were land-saturated, incapable of deriving a large income
from their inherited holdings. Friends and relatives, always
ready to request assistance, believed the Sublettes were ex-
tremely wealthy. Instead, Solomon could give their pleas little
attention. He did not have the means, and the strong, deep
tragic current in his life ran full at the end. Frances was sel-
dom in good health, her conditioned weakened by the birth
of two children, Esther Frances and William Hugh Sublette.
Young William died at seventeen months. Esther Frances
survived her parents, but died at the age of seven. 35 Frances
succumbed after a prolonged illness on September 28, 1857,
but fortunately Solomon was spared that final grief, since he
preceded her in death by four weeks. 36 In his forty-two years
of life he had missed success and happiness. He did, however,
realize that his Western experiences would be useful to writ-
ers such as Joseph Ware, compiler of an emigrants' guide in
1849, who found Solomon a ready source of Western
information. 37

In retrospect modern psychiatry could find in Solomon's
life an interesting study. Orphaned at an early age and en-
trusted to relatives for many years, he matured too late to
follow profitably his brothers' vocation. His life was over-
shadowed by their success, and he was unable to find security,
satisfaction or an answer to his "destiny neurosis." At Wil-
liam's death the only strong guiding hand in his life was lost.
"During his life time," Solomon wrote despondently, "I had
a friend and one that would do any thing to assist me, in pro-

34. F. S. to S. P. Sublette, March 2, 1851, ibid.; In the Supreme Court of Missouri,
October Term, 190S, Division No. 1, p. 159. See also the Sublette burial ground marker,
Bellefontaine Cemetery, St. Louis.

35. Sallie Hereford to S. P. and F. S. Sublette, December 16, 1853, Sublette MSS. ;
M. L. to S. P. Sublette ( ?), August 12, 1852, ibid.; In the Supreme Court . . ., pp. 169-
160.

36. Files of Estates of Solomon P. Sublette, File 5072, and Frances S. Sublette,
File 5073, MSS., St. Louis Probate Court.

37. Joseph E. Ware, The Emigrants' Guide to California (St. Louis, 1849), pp.
xxiii, 26.

MOUNTAIN MAN 61

moting happiness, reputation, & prosperity, he loved me as a
father would a Son, it was one of the greatest calamities that
ever fell to the lot of men the day I lost him." 38 Dogged by per-
sonal tragedy, Solomon Sublette surrendered to failure and
died as the new West of miner, cowhand and farmer replaced
the West of the Mountain Men.

38. S. P. Sublette to M. Tarver, March 19, 1849, Sublette MSS. ; John E. Sunder,
Bill Sublette : Mountain Man, Norman, 1959 ; Franz Alexander, Our Age of Unreason,
New York and Philadelphia, 1942.

LEW WALLACE'S BEN HUR
By JACKSON E. TOWNE

OLIVER LAFARGE, in his "Santa Fe. The Autobiography of
a Southwestern Town," speaks of General Lew Wallace
as the "first recorded member of the town's art colony," for
Wallace wrote the sixth, seventh and eighth books of the
novel "Ben Hur" in the Palace of the Governors at Santa Fe
while serving as Territorial Governor of New Mexico from
1878 to 1881.

The present writer well remembers how Dr. Edgar L.
Hewett, as a former Director of the Museum of New Mexico
had assembled a number of interesting relics pertaining to
Lew Wallace, including the General's morris chair with lap
board on which he wrote ; his bronze bust, presented to the
institution by his son, Henry Wallace; portraits, with one
of the General wearing the rather too long beard which he
affected in the 1870's ; copies of some of his most important
executive orders ; a set of his most important works ; and the
letter certifying to the portions of "Ben Hur" written in the
Palace, as follows :

(although the letter is dated from Crawfordsville, Indiana,
"May 6th, '90," the General wrote on stationery bearing the
letterhead of the "Territory of New Mexico, Office of the
Secretary, Santa Fe")
Dear Sir :

Touching your inquiry whether "Ben-Hur" was written
in the old palace of Santa Fe, I beg to say it was finished
there. That is, the MS. was completed at the same time of my
appointment to the governorship of New Mexico (1877), down
to the sixth book of the volume, and I carried it with me.

When in the city, my habit was to shut myself after night,
in the bedroom back of the executive office proper, and write
till after 12 o'clock. The sixth, seventh and eighth books were
the result, and the room has ever since been associated in my
mind with the Crucifixion. The retirement, impenetrable to
incoming sound, was as profound as a cavern's.

Very respectfully.

(Signed) Lew Wallace

62

BEN HUR 63

"Ben Hur" is not a great historical novel, it cannot be
compared with "Quo Vadis" or with "War and Peace." But
"Ben Hur" has had by far the most financially successful
series of dramatizations for stage and screen of any novel
written anywhere. The technicolor production released by the
Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer company and premiered in New York
City at Loew's State Theatre on November 16, 1959, is confi-
dently predicted to prove the most profitable single film in
the entire history of the motion picture industry. The Metro
production is expected to surpass the financial record of
Paramount's "The Ten Commandments," reputed to have
earned $27,000,000 in its first 19 months of showing; and a
figure of $30,000,000 for "Ben Hur" has been quoted in
Variety.

The earnings of "Ben Hur" have certainly been out of all
proportion to the quality of the original novel. Has it been
the chariot race that has been such an attraction? We can ac-
count for some of the latest success because of wisely chosen
adapters, such as Maxwell Anderson, S. N. Behrman, Chris-
topher Fry and Gore Vidal ; looking backward, we can highly
credit the competent acting of such old stage players as Wil-
liam H. Farnum, Conway Tearle and William S. Hart, and
currently, again, much praise is doubtless due such effective
screen players as Charlton Heston, Sam Jaffe and Finlay
Currie; but are these factors sufficient to explain the enor-
mous earnings? There remains an enigma for the serious
theatre and screen critic. In the meantime, the record in mere
quantitative terms is certainly striking.

"Ben Hur" was published as a novel by Joseph Henry
Harper of the well-known firm of Harpers of New York on
November 12, 1880. A contract was signed which gave the
author a 10 per cent royalty. In the first seven months after
publication the novel only sold about 2,800 copies, earning
for Wallace less than $300. (The book was priced at a dollar
and a half.) By 1883 Wallace wrote to his son that he hoped
for $100 a year from "Ben Hur" and the earlier novel of the
conquest of Mexico, "The Fair God," together. During the
initial months after publication some of the harshest and
shrewdest criticisms of "Ben Hur" appeared. For a balanced,

64 NEW MEXICO HISTORICAL REVIEW

academic judgment of the story the reader is referred to Carl
Van Doren's strictures in his "The American Novel" pub-
lished some fifteen years after Wallace's death.

Following a slow start, sales of "Ben Hur" began to boom,
and as Irving McKee puts it in his popular biography of Wal-
lace : "the rill became a brook, the brook a river, the river a
flood." And Mr. McKee summarizes :

Schools, colleges and clubs without number swam with the tide
and swelled it; as no other novel it was good for the young,
the impressionable, the wayward. By the close of 1889, 400,000
copies had been sold, and there was no sign of a slackening. In
1890 various newspapers, perhaps on the authority of Harpers,
said it had outsold Uncle Tom's Cabin. ... By 1911 a million
authorized Ben-Hurs had been disposed of, not to mention
pirated copies in England and Germany. It was translated into
German, French, Swedish, Bohemian, Turkish, Italian, Span-
ish, Portuguese, Arabic, and Lithuanian, and printed in
Braille. . . . Harpers in 1944 estimated that at least 2,500,000
copies had been sold. . . .

In due course, Wallace was besieged with offers for the
dramatization of "Ben Hur." He was in correspondence with
a number of famous actors about it, with Lawrence Barrett
and Alexander Salvini ; and Henry Irving once seriously con-
sidered attempting the role of Simonides which is so ably
played by Sam Jaff e in the current film version. No first rate
dramatists applied, and in 1899 Wallace agreed to a produc-
tion to be directed by one Joseph Brooks of the firm of Klaw
and Erlanger, with the story to be adapted by one William
Young of Chicago. Wallace's royalties were to be double those
he had received from Harpers. Claude L. Hagen designed a
machine to manipulate "waves" in the naval scene, tread-
mills for the chariot race (a refinement of the mechanism
used previously in the Klaw and Erlanger production of "The
County Fair," written by Charles Barnard and Neil Bur-
gess) , and a moving panorama of the arena.

The Young adaptation involved thirteen scenes in six
acts : the desert with a pantomime of the Wise Men, the roof
of the Hur palace in Jerusalem, the galley, the raft, Simon-

BEN HUR 65

ides' house, the Grove of Daphne, the Fountain of Castalia,
Ilderim's tent, the Orchard of Palms, the gateway to the
Circus, the arena, the vale of Hinnom, and Mount Olivet. A
shaft of light (25,000 candle power) was used, growing
brighter to signify Christ's approach and dimmer at His exit,
Jesus Himself not actually being impersonated.

At the opening performance the title role was not taken
by William H. Farnum but he soon stepped into it, and was
later regarded as having been the most successful of a num-
ber of actors in the part, including Conway Tearle, Henry
Woodruff, and Thurston Hall. Messala was played from the
start by William S. Hart who later made a great reputation
in grade B Western movies. One of the last interpretations
of Messala was given by Franklin Pangborn who later be-
came a slap-stick two-reel film comedian, specializing in out-
raged floor-walker impersonations.

The premiere of "Ben Hur" occurred at the Broadway
Theatre in New York City on November 29, 1899. General
Wallace was present, conspicuously seated with Mrs. Wallace
in a lower proscenium box, and made a brief appearance
before the footlights between the acts. The performance ran
for three hours and twenty-nine minutes, which is interest-
ing to compare with the running time of the current film of
sixty years later which takes three hours and thirty-two
minutes. (The silent film version of 1925 ran two hours and
eight minutes.)

The dramatic version was an immediate and smashing
hit in New York in 1899. It held the stage for twenty-four
weeks, until May 12th, and reopened again in the fall. The
more serious critics found much fault, just as the earliest
critics of the novel had done, but everyone went to see the
production. The New York Clipper speaks of "packed
houses," "a triumphant success," "record-breaking attend-
ance," and "enormous business."

In 1900 the big heavy show set out on the first of many
tours to the leading theatres in the major cities of the United
States, annual tours which were to continue unbroken until
the play was finally withdrawn, in Newark, New Jersey, in
the last week of April, 1920. There were Australian tours

66 NEW MEXICO HISTORICAL REVIEW

and London productions. Unfortunately the stage version of
"Ben Hur" never played in Santa Fe, nor even in Albuquer-
que, or anywhere in New Mexico. One of the first of the tours
took the show to Indianapolis, which was in a sense Wallace's
"home town," when he was not living in Crawfordsville.

Fifty years ago the present writer had the pleasure of
seeing "Ben Hur" performed on the stage of the Davidson
Theatre in Milwaukee during the 1908-09 tour, when the
good English actor, Conway Tearle, had the title role. The
boatswain in the galley scene had a sort of gavel with which
he pounded time for the oarsmen, and he ominously began
pounding the gavel several minutes before the curtain went
up on the scene. The gray sheets fluttering to represent waves
in the raft scene made a poor illusion; but the chariot race
was an undeniable thriller !

For some reason, Claude Hagen's panorama of the arena
was dispensed with, and the horses, chariots and charioteers
performed against black curtains with strong spotlights
thrown onto the stage from the wings. There were only two
chariots, with two horses each. The horses galloped slowly
forward, facing directly into the footlights, immediately re-
mindful of the horses used to pull the smoking fire engines
of the 1900's. The rollers of the two treadmills made a tre-
mendous noise, filling the darkened auditorium with thunder
enough to suggest the giving way of a gigantic log boom on
the Columbia River. So noisy were the treadmills that the
clatter of the horses hooves, the grinding of the wheels of
the chariots, and the crack of Messala's whip were quite in-
audible. After a few moments, Messala's chariot slipped into
a slant, and the audience knew that the villain's chariot had
lost its wheel, as in the story. Ben Hur's chariot then moved
a little forward on its treadmill, and the curtain came down
amidst wild applause !

Joseph Brooks, the Erlanger representative who first
contacted Wallace about the play, was killed in a fall from
the eighth floor of his home on West 79th Street, New York,
November 29, 1916 (the anniversary of the opening in 1899) .
He was believed to have earned a fortune of $250,000 as
director of "Ben Hur."

BEN HUR 67

Mr. McKee, in his biography of Wallace, summarizes the
success of the stage version for us :

It was destined to be performed 6,000 times, mostly in big cities
and at high prices; a total of 20,000,000 persons were to pay
$10,000,000 to see it. The itinerary for twenty-one years with
enlarged stages, S. R. O. signs, full-length seasons is un-
equaled in the history of the theatre. It is a roll call of Amer-
ica, and of some of the rest of the world. Ben-Hur broke down
another barrier: as the novel was bought by people who had
never read a novel before, the play was stormed by newcomers
to the theatre. . . .

Klaw and Erlanger made millions, Harpers and the Wallaces
(father and son) hundreds of thousands, and a vast throng of
actors, managers, stagehands, book sellers, and other middle-
men fattened on Ben-Hur. . . .

General Wallace died at Crawfordsville, Indiana, on Feb-
ruary 14, 1905. "Ben Hur" was on tour, of course, and that
year it had played Indianapolis once again.

Within a few months after the final withdrawal of the
play in 1920, preparations were under way for the first
"colossal" silent movie version. The General's son, Henry,
was paid $1,000,000 for the rights by Erlanger, Ziegfeld and
Dillingham ; and the Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer studio outbid all
others in purchasing the rights. The studio then "labored for
three years, 1922-1925, from Rome to Hollywood, expending
$4,000,000 more on (the staging from) a scenario by Carey
Wilson and Bess Meredyth." Mr. McKee's biography
continues :

The seafight was enacted in the Mediterranean with fourteen
vessels and twenty-eight hundred men. Ten thousand actors,
one hundred and ninety-eight horses, a specially constructed
grandstand three thousand feet long, forty-two cameras (one
of them in an airplane) were necessary for the chariot race,
which cost a quarter of a million

Variety, the well known theatrical journal, in its number
for November 18, 1959, gives us some further little known
facts:

While a good part of the picture was photographed in Italy,
some big scenes like the chariot race and interiors were done

68 NEW MEXICO HISTORICAL REVIEW

in Hollywood. When the race was run, a wheel came loose on a
chariot and several of the vehicles crashed into one another.
Through a miracle, no one was hurt, but one of the most spec-
tacular (and unplanned) scenes had been put on record.
In the chapter in his book, "The Lion's Share," devoted to
"Ben-Hur," Bosley Crowther records that the picture when it
finally opened on Broadway on December 30, 1925, ran 128
minutes and stayed at the George M. Cohan Theatre for a
year. In fact, it didn't get into general release until the fall of
1927. According to Crowther, "Ben-Hur" lost money for Metro,
but "the vast commercial prestige redounding to the company
through having this picture was a tremendous . . . boon."
Total earnings, including those from a reissue in 1931 with
sound dubbed in, totaled $9,386,000 according to Crowther.
With 35% subtracted for distribution, this left $6,100,000.
However, this had to be divided equally with the backers, who
included Florenz Ziegfeld, Vincent Astor, Robert Walton
Goelet and others. . . .

We conclude our references to the first of the great "Ben
Hur" films with one more quotation from Mr. McKee :

The movie's first run on Broadway lasted twenty-two months,
and then it pervaded the country and much of the world, after
the manner of movies. Berlin applauded it; King George and
Queen Mary attended a special showing at Windsor Castle;
China banned it as pro-Christian propaganda ... A movie
edition of the novel sold enormously. Whoever had not seen
Ben-Hur before saw it now, in cities, towns, hamlets.

We have already referred to the Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer
film version (Santa Fe saw it now, of course !) which had its
premiere in New York City at Loew's State Theatre on No-
vember 16, 1959, indicating the enormous earnings which
are anticipated. And we have already mentioned the collabo-
ration of a number of distinguished playwrights on the
adaptation. It is undoubtedly the treatment which the more
intimate scenes of the story have been given by these exper-
ienced authors which accounts for the praise which the film
has received from all the more serious movie critics, from
Mr. Crowther in the New York Times on into all the better
national magazines which carry cinema reviews. For the first

BEN HUR 69

time since 1880 the intimate scenes of the story have received
general critical commendation.

The Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer film was directed by William
Wyler. It will be presented twice daily to a reserved seat
audience in no less than 30 American cities by March, 1960.
Once again Santa Fe will miss a presentation of the story
that was originally written in part in the Palace of the Gov-
ernors. This is ironic, for the medium used should make for
the widest dispersal in the shortest possible time.

We conclude with a paragraph from Variety magazine
for Wednesday, November 18, 1959:

The statistics concerning the production are overwhelming.
They include 1,500,000 feet of exposed film, six $100,000 "Cam-
era 65" units, 300 sets, 100,000 costumes, 1,500,000 props, 78
trained horses from Yugoslavia, 12 camels from North Africa,
hundreds of other horses, sheep and other animals, 10,000 feet
of electrical equipment, 25,000 extras and bit players, 1,000
Italian workers who labored one year to build the arena for the
chariot race, 50 ships built especially for the sea battle, 18
custom-made chariots, 60,000 blossoms for a victory parade,
two miles of pipe for water used in 40 minutes, one ton of
specially designed ceramic tile . . .

"My God!" exclaimed General Wallace when shown all
the elaborate scenery being placed in position for the dress
rehearsal for the initial New York production of " Ben Hur"
in 1899 : "Did I set all this in motion?"

Hollywood, April 5 (AP) The 15 million dollar movie
"Ben-Hur," most costly in Hollywood history, reaped 11 Os-
cars last night. It was the greatest Academy Award triumph
ever scored. The Albuquerque Tribune, April 5, 1960.

(F.D.R.)

Book Reviews

The Mexican Revolution: 19 14-19 15. By Robert F. Quirk.
Bloomington : University of Indiana Press, 1960. Pp. 325,
index. $6.75.

Here is an account of a most critical year in the history
of Mexico, from the time of the collapse of the regime of Vic-
toriano Huerta in mid-1914 to the triumph of the Constitu-
tionalist forces of Venustiano Carranza and Alvaro Obregon
over the Conventionist forces of Pancho Villa and Emiliano
Zapata in mid-1915. It was a most significant year, one in
which the Mexican nation was caught up in a titanic struggle
between competing revolutionary personalities and ideolo-
gies. There was a plethora of parliamentary debate and revo-
lutionary proclamation but the outcome was determined, of
course, on the field of battle.

Professor Robert Quirk has made a substantial contribu-
tion to our knowledge of the great revolution in Mexico. This
book is solidly based upon primary material. It is a product
of prolonged research in depth. The style is lively, witty, and
lucid.

For the first time, in English, we have a truly penetrating
analysis of the regional, ideological, and personality clashes
that provoked such turmoil in this year. In addition to bring-
ing into sharper relief the Villa-Carranza feud, the author
explores in detail the more subtle differences within each
major camp, such as factors which prevented full cooperation
between Villa and Zapata and the often unpredictable nature
of Obregon's relationship with Carranza. In addition, there is
brought to light the important supporting roles played by
such Constitutionalist generals as Lucio Blanco, Francisco
Coss, Pablo Gonzalez, Eulalio Gonzalez, and villista officers
as Felipe Angeles and Roque Gonzalez Garza. Most vivid of
all are his descriptions of Zapatistas like Antonio Diaz Soto
y Gama, Manuel Palafox and Antonio Barona.

If the author is partial to one side or the other he cer-
tainly conceals it well in his exposition. The only slightly
subjective treatment of an individual that this reviewer can

70

BOOK REVIEWS 71

detect is that of Gonzalez Garza. Perhaps this is because the
author drew quite heavily on his private papers and was in
such close contact with him prior to writing this book.

To the mountain of criticism already heaped upon Wood-
row Wilson's diplomacy in this period, Mr. Quirk piles on
still more. In particular, he portrays the near idiocy of a
policy of backing a leader such as Villa, even after his cause
was hopelessly lost.

In sum, this volume fills a real gap, but it makes even more
apparent another gap in the early history of the revolution.
The books by Stanley Ross and Charles Cumberland have
dealt competently with the Madero Period 1910-February
1913. What is badly needed now to fill the remaining gap is a
treatment, as fine as this book of Mr. Quirk's on the mid-1914-
1915 period, of the Huerta regime during the period Febru-
ary 1913-July 1914.

University of New Mexico EDWIN LIEUWEN

Texas Indian Papers 1825-1843. Edited by Dorman H. Win-
frey et al. Austin : Texas State Library, 1959. Pp. 298.
$5.25.

The Texas archives are an invaluable source of informa-
tion for students of both state and national affairs. The In-
dian papers are now made more readily available to them.
Subsequent volumes will present additional documents for
the period from 1844 to annexation and into the statehood
period.

The story of the red man in the United States has been
explained in scholarly publications, in others of a trivial na-
ture, in drama, music and the novel. For sheer understand-
ing of a most complex story, if attainable, documents offer
for the interested mind the most promising avenue toward
achieving it. They deal with war and peace, trade and friend-
ship, the way of life for Indian and white in bygone days, and
sidelights on human behavior that reveal at least one con-
stant in an ever changing world. It is unfortunate for history
that Indians did not record their thoughts more often, so we

72 NEW MEXICO HISTORICAL REVIEW

must picture them through the white man's words and docu-
ments offer the only front row seat for the viewer.

The Texas State Archive staff transcribed the documents
literally and without omissions. They are to be congratulated.
Despite maximum care, one wonders whether an error did
creep into the text on line 1, page 3 and line 19.

Notes on General Ashley the Overland Trail and South Pass.
By Donald McKay Frost. Barre, Massachusetts: Barre
Gazette, 1960. Pp. xii, 149. Index and pocket map. $5.00.

This publication is a reprint from the Proceedings of The
American Antiquarian Society. Chapter 1 presents a brief
sketch of the Rocky Mountain fur trade, and chapters 2-8
deal with activities of General Ashley. Building on Hiram
Chittenden's pioneer work, the author uses the letters of
Daniel T. Potts, published in Appendix A, the narrative of
James Clyman, the journal of Jedediah Smith, and newspa-
per accounts (Appendix B) for the years 1822-1830. The
excellent discussion of the fur trade and the printing of
source material in the Appendix (nearly two-thirds of the
book) make this study of prime interest to students of west-
ern history.

Forty Years Among the Indians: A true yet thrilling narra-
tive of the Author's experiences among the Natives. By
Daniel W. Jones. Los Angeles : Westernlore Press, 1960.
Pp. xvi, 378. $8.50.

Dan Jones was a rolling stone, but a rolling stone bent on
business. He participated in the founding of Utah by the Mor-
mons, preached their Gospel in Mexico and worked among
the Indians in the Salt River valley of Arizona with both reli-
gious and economic aims. His long rambling history was
written late in life and allowance must be made for an occa-
sional lapse of memory, not to mention inaccuracy of infor-
mation. The original publication has long been a collector's
item, so this reprint will be welcome to readers interested in
westernlore.

BOOK REVIEWS 73

Sibley's New Mexico Campaign. By Martin Hardwick Hall.
Austin : University of Texas Press, 1960. Pp. xv, 366. Il-
lustrations, bibliography and index.

This is the most intensive treatment of the Confederate
invasion of New Mexico during the Civil War that has yet
been published, but it is not the definitive account. The bibli-
ography is good, but a few more items of information cover-
ing moot points might have been unearthed if other Federal
archives relating to New Mexico had been consulted. The
author did not find a satisfactory answer to the question why
the Federal troops stationed at Fort Fillmore failed to make
the march to San Agustin springs as a fighting force. The
answer has been offered by other writers that the troops had
filled their canteens with whiskey rather than water and
thirst caused their defeat. Soldiers have marched long dis-
tances under trying circumstances, so it is reasonable to as-
sume that the above march need not have ended so disas-
trously. Nor does the author explain satisfactorily the reason
for Chivington's march over the mountain to attack the Con-
federate supply train. Was it so planned or was there another
reason or reasons?

There is an occasional minor point that might be ques-
tioned, but it is not essential to do so. The book is well written
and a useful addition to southwestern historical literature.
The author has included the muster rolls of the confederate
troops that fill over a fourth of the total pages.

It has long been acceptable practice to drop the accent
on Rio and Santa Fe.

Narrative of the Surrender Of a Command of U.S. Forces At
Fort Fillmore New Mexico In July, A.D., 1861. By Major
James Cooper McKee. Houston : Stagecoach Press, 1960.
Pp. viii, 64. Maps and index. $4.75.

"One of the rarest Civil War items of Texas-New Mexico
action, now reprinted with added Confederate reports," so
reads, and correctly, the jacket blurb. Major McKee, army
surgeon, left for posterity this account of the surrender of

74 NEW MEXICO HISTORICAL REVIEW

Fort Fillmore which historians are still belaboring in search
of the truth. The limited edition of 550 copies of the reprint
is a credit in appearance to the Press: "Type used for the
text is Excelsior, composed on the Linotype, with handset
accessories. The paper is Hamilton's Kilmory."

A Guide to the Microfilm of Papers relating to New Mexico
Land Grants. By Albert James Diaz. Albuquerque : Uni-
versity of New Mexico Press, 1960. Pp. vii, 102. $1.75.

This is a guide to the original records of the Federal Land
Office, Santa Fe, New Mexico, and the microfilm copy at the
University of New Mexico and other libraries. It provides a
brief description of each of the twenty-three archival sec-
tions. The land grant cases are then listed by title in alpha-
betical order, listed by report number, by file number and
case, and finally by microfilm reel number. The Archives are
important for southwestern history and allied subjects, and
the guide should encourage scholarly exploitation of their
wealth.

F. D. R.

The Cahuilla Indians. By Harry C. James. Los Angeles:
Westernlore Press, 1960. Pp. 185. $7.50.

Historians and writers in general have long been guilty
of ignoring the Indians of California or writing them off as
stupid, backward savages. All one has to do to realize the
truth of this is to examine the major works dealing with Cali-
fornia history or with phases of that history and one will
notice the absence of material on the native Californian.
When he is mentioned it is almost always with the same atti-
tude as was held by the Spanish and Anglo-American invad-
ers of the Far West : the California Indians are fit only to be
conquered and "civilized."

It is very refreshing indeed to find a work of the quality
of The Cahuilla Indians, written well and written, I think,
accurately. Harry C. James has known the Cahuilla for many
years ; in fact he has come to be a part of this outstanding
group of Indians. Thus he has had many first-person contacts

BOOK REVIEWS 75

which enrich his narrative and make the book one which
should be on the shelf of every southwestern historian and
armchair anthropologist. In particular, his accounts of Ca-
huilla folklore and of leading Indians such as Ramona, Juan
Antonio, and Fig Tree John, are very interesting and in-
formative. The Cahuilla creation story is a very beautiful
one, certainly ranking in poetic imagery with the best of
mankind's creation myths.

Most writers who deal with the Indian write from the
"outside" so to speak; they cannot give to the reader the
"feel" of the particular Indian culture which they are de-
scribing. Mr. James overcomes this difficulty to a great ex-
tent one comes away from his book with a feeling of having
been direct contact with the Cahuilla.

Technically speaking, The Cahuilla Indians is not a his-
tory, although it does bring to light some aspects of the In-
dian past. It is more than anything else an introduction to a
people, in this case, the Cahuilla. The author seeks to have
the reader understand something of the Indians' way of life,
of their importance in history, of their folk imagery, of
their adjustment to the European invasion, and of their
promise for the future. General readers will appreciate Mr.
James' careful location of Cahuilla village-sites and his dis-
cussion of the differences between the Western, Mountain
and Desert Cahuilla subdivisions. His story of the back-
grounds for Helen Hunt Jackson's novel Ramona is very in-
teresting as well.

The Cahuilla Indians is a small but beautifully prepared
book. It is undoubtedly one of the nicest volumes published
by Westernlore Press, partly because of the excellent art
work of Don Louis Perceval. The illustrations are either tak-
en from Cahuilla motifs or are depictions of the Indians' way
of life. The book is also enhanced by over two dozen fine
photographs, including a picture of the real Ramona.

The publisher indicates that The Cahuilla Indians "... is
certain to remain the definitive work . . ." on this tribe. I hope
that this will not be true, for even though Mr. James' book
is excellent indeed, it does not tell the complete story of the
Cahuilla in either historical or anthropological dimensions.

76 NEW MEXICO HISTORICAL REVIEW

It is to be hoped that one day a trained historian will consult
the Spanish, Mexican and Anglo-American manuscript ma-
terial and will re-create in detail the exciting past of this im-
portant tribe. Until then, and even after that event, Harry
C. James' work will remain one of the best introductions to
an Indian group that has been written.

San Fernando Valley State College JACK D. FORBES

Our Spanish Southwest. By Lynn I. Perrigo. Dallas : Banks
Upshaw and Company, 1960. Bibliography. Index. Pp. iv,
498.

Our Spanish Southwest is designed as a textbook and gen-
eral reference work on southwest history. It is a formidable
undertaking for its 498 pages. There is a set of good maps
depicting Indian cultures, Spanish and foreign explorers,
developing transportation and communication facilities, and
national parks and monuments. The work is enhanced by
sixty-nine pages of bibliography and an adequate index. Dr.
Perrigo has successfully attempted to fill the urgent need for
a text in southwest and borderlands history with this publi-
cation. Until a more detailed synthesis appears the present
work will certainly be used.

A survey of such a vast area as Texas, New Mexico, Ari-
zona, California and environs from prehistoric times to the
present is bound to have some shortcomings. Those interested
in colonial times will be disappointed with the scan one hun-
dred and twenty pages devoted to the time area to 1821. The
colonial section suffers from compressing too much data into
too few pages. There are a number of factual errors, nebu-
lous definitions of Spanish terms, and frequent typographical
errors. The nineteenth and twentieth centuries are empha-
sized, and as a consequence, fare much better, even though
the style often fails to present the information in the most
interesting light. The reader interested in Indian affairs
would wish for a deeper treatment and one expanded beyond
the Navaho and their problems.

Many of the errors in print are obviously the fault of the

BOOK REVIEWS 77

editor and his proofreaders. Pages 47, 22, 28, and the Bibli-
ography are cases in point.

Mexico City College RICHARD E. GREENLEAF

Fremont's Fourth Expedition. Edited by LeRoy R. Hafen
and Ann W. Hafen, Glendale, California : The Arthur H.
Clark Company, 1960. Pp. 319. Illustrations, maps, and
index.

John Charles Fremont is one of the most controversial
figures associated with the pioneer history of the American
West, as this collection of documents once again verifies. Be-
tween 1842 and 1846 he conducted three highly successful
and well-publicized topographical expeditions through the
Rocky Mountains and along the Pacific Coast. Then his career
seemed to fall apart. The historic feud with General Kearny
during the conquest of California forced the once glamorous
pathfinder to "resign" from the army. Backed by his power-
ful father-in-law, Senator Thomas Hart Benton, and ample
private funds, he set out from St. Louis in the fall of 1848
determined to find a practical railroad route to the Pacific
along the thirty-eighth parallel.

The expedition consisted of thirty-three men, most of
whom were veterans of Fremont's earlier ventures. In addi-
tion, there were one hundred and thirty mules, and the best
equipment, instruments, and arms that money could buy. Old
Bill Williams, the famous mountain man, served as official
guide. Fremont subsequently attempted to cross the Sangre
de Cristo and San Juan Mountains during one of the most
severe winters on record, perhaps as much to remove the
stigma of his recent court-martial as to prove the feasibility
of a railroad route across the Central Rockies.

But the fourth expedition proved a resounding failure,
and for that reason it is less well-known than the previous
ones. The Fremont party got lost in the mountains and before
it could extricate itself, ten men and all the mules were dead.
In the resulting controversy, various participants and inter-
ested parties tried to fix the blame on someone other than
themselves. Fremont claimed that his guide was incompetent

78 NEW MEXICO HISTORICAL REVIEW

and that his men were cowardly and easily discouraged by
misfortune charges not supported by evidence.

In 1955 William Brandon published an excellent narrative
of Fremont's ill-fated expedition (THE MEN AND THE
MOUNTAIN) based largely upon original documents relat-
ing to the episode. He fixed most of the blame upon the leader
himself, plus a combination of severe weather and just plain
bad luck. The documents used by Brandon, with additional
miscellaneous newspaper stories, letters, and reports, have
now been brought together by one of the most careful docu-
mentarians of Rocky Mountain history.

Professor Hafen has the good judgment not to clutter the
various accounts of the expedition with too many footnotes.
By bringing all of the available primary materials together,
he has made a contribution to a very important facet of west-
ern explorations. The reader will not only be gripped by the
stark drama that unfolds, though some of the narratives are
repetitious, he also will have the opportunity to draw his own
conclusions as to direct responsibility for the tragedy.

University of Oklahoma W. EUGENE HOLLON

The Life of John Wesley Hardin as Written by Himself. In-
troduction by Robert G. McCubbin. Norman : University
of Oklahoma Press, 1961. Pp. xxi, 152. $2.00.

Originally published in Seguin, Texas, in 1896, a year
after Hardin's death at the hands of John Selman, in El Paso,
Texas, the book now republished has long since been a scarce
and expensive item, eagerly sought after by rare book dealers
and collectors. Assuming that he told the truth in his book,
John Wesley Hardin killed many men, some with no justifi-
cation whatever, others under circumstances which might
have cause a lenient jury, in a favorable atmosphere, to bring
in a verdict that he either killed in self defense or under suffi-
cient provocation. Born in Fannin County, Texas, in 1853,
reared in the backwash of the Civil War years, Hardin was
peculiar as boy and man, even in an era when much was
accepted, tolerated and forgiven in a frontier country. Ac-
cording to his own story, Hardin was a wayward boy, a head-

BOOK REVIEWS 79

strong, unruly young man, a gambler and hard drinker as an
adult, fond of owning and racing horses for high stakes, de-
termined to have his own way in everything, regardless of
the results to parents, wife, children, or society in general.
Belatedly for his own good, Hardin wound up in the peni-
tentiary at Huntsville and was confined there, still unruly
and unrepentent, for many years, being finally pardoned.
Apparently Hardin never suffered remorse as the result of
any killing for which he was responsible. He appears to have
been obsessed with the idea that he was always right, the
other fellow to the encounter always wrong. Throughout the
book it is made to appear that he nearly always emerged the
victor in any fight, the hero of almost every incident. Conse-
quently the book has a decided Walter Mitty flavor. Hardin
grew up in a period when thousands of fellow Texans, with
much less to go on in the way of education and opportunity,
became respected, successful citizens. Hardin's attempt to
justify his wayward conduct does not seem to measure up.
No doubt a "kill or be killed" character, it is difficult to find a
category for him in the southwestern album. Apparently he
had no nerves and was a man of great physical strength and
endurance. Was he a brave, courageous man? Reckless, dar-
ing, a swashbuckler, yes. Brave, chivalrous, no. In 1927, the
McMillan Company, New York, published a reprint of the
1882 Pat F. Garrett's Authentic Life of Billy the Kid, with
a foreword and extensive editorial notes by the late Maurice
Garland Fulton, of Roswell, New Mexico. It is to be regretted
that the Oklahoma U. Press and Mr. McCubbin did not col-
laborate in a like project. Inquiry at the Huntsville, Texas,
penitentiary, where Hardin was confined for many years,
might have yielded much record information, which in turn
would have indicated worth while avenues of research, result-
ing in a harvest of interesting explanatory notes. Notwith-
standing this lack, the Hardin book is a very worth while
contribution, one that will be welcomed by a host of readers
and collectors. Bob McCubbin and the publisher deserve the
gratitude of all lovers of Southwestern history for their en-
terprise in publishing a valuable book at a reasonable price.

Albuquerque WILLIAM A. KELEHER

Notes and Documents

A PAT GARRBTT ITEM

In The Authentic Life of Billy the Kid, Garrett devotes a single
paragraph to his meeting with Mariano Leiva. According to his version,
Juanito Maes approached Garrett at Puerto de Luna and offered to
surrender, but was told the posse held no warrant for him. As he
walked away Leiva directed a tirade of abuse at Garrett, saying that
he would like to see any damned gringo arrest him. When his actions
became threatening, Garrett slapped him off the porch. Leiva drew his
gun and fired a wild shot, whereupon Garrett shot him in the shoulder.
The desperado then fled. 1 This is a good story in itself, but surely a
recountre with the man described by Sheriff Perfecto Armijo, of Ber-
nalillo County, as "without doubt the worst villain within the bounds
of the Territory" 2 deserves something more than passing mention.

Properly viewed, Garrett's account takes its place as one of three
apparently unrelated incidents. The first of these was the disappearance
of Colonel Charles S. Potter, a member of the U. S. Geological Survey
Corps. On October 14, 1880, he left Tijeras en route to the New Placers
and vanished. By the end of the year his friends had become so con-
cerned about his fate that they offered a reward of $1,000 for discovery
of his whereabouts if alive and $200 for the recovery of his body if dead,
but no claimant of the money appeared.

The second occurred on December 10, 1880, when Garrett and his
posse rode into Puerto de Luna to deliver two prisoners, John J. Webb
and George Davis, to the deputies there. While the officer was sitting in
a store operated by Alexander Grezelachowski, Juan Silva (erroneously
called Juanito Maes in The Authentic Life) walked up and offered to
surrender. The balance of Garrett's account is in accord with the re-
ports in the contemporary papers 3 and need not be repeated.

The third took place at Bernalillo a few days later, when officers
there captured two horse thieves: Pantaleon Miera, a quondam lieu-
tenant of the infamous Sostenes Archeveque, and Santos Benavides.
Presumably the town lacked proper jail facilities, since the prisoners
were confined in the home of Constable Pedro Valdez. Early in the
evening of the 29th the guards were overpowered and the two thieves
were lynched from a limb of a cottonwood which stood in the front yard. 4

The clue that was to bring these three apparently separate and
unrelated incidents into focus as a single picture was the fact that
Miera had pawned a gold watch and chain. When they were recognized
as having belonged to Colonel Potter, Sheriff Armijo proceeded to Ber-

1. Garrett, Pat F., The Authentic Life of Bitty the Kid. Norman: University of
Oklahoma Press. 1954, pp. 107-108.

2. Las Vegas Daily Optic, April 5, 1882.

8. Santa Fe Weekly New Mexican, December 20, 1880.
4. Santa Fe Daily New Mexican, December 30, 1880.

80

NOTES 81

nalillo to trace the connection between the two men. His investigation
cast suspicion upon one Escolastica Perea, who was promptly arrested in
Isleta.

Brought to Albuquerque for interrogation, Perea promptly con-
fessed that he had seen the crime committed, although he denied taking
any part in it. According to his story, Colonel Potter had met some men
on the road and they had advised him to proceed to the New Placers via
a short cut which passed through Tijeras Canyon. Miguel Barrera
accompanied him as a guide. Mariano Leiva hastened to the home of
one California Joe, obtained arms, returned to the party, and shot Pot-
ter. After rifling his pockets they buried the body in the bed of a little
stream about three miles from Tijeras. Officers promptly seized Barrera
at Tejon and California Joe at Maders, and lodged them in jail at Albu-
querque. On the night of January 31, 1881, a party estimated to con-
sist of 200 men quietly entered the jail, seized the prisoners, and hung
them from a wooden beam in front of the building. 5

It was rumored that Leiva (Leiba, Leyba) was dead, which pre-
sumably was based on his having been shot by Garrett. However, it was
eventually learned that he was hiding in the vicinity of Puerto de Luna.
Officers traced him from there to White Oaks, then to Vallegos, and
thence to Truchas. Each time the hunted man managed to steal fresh
horses and make his escape. On the 15th of March the posse lost his
trail in the vicinity of Rincon del Alamo Gordo. While they searched
for it, G. M. Wilson stumbled over Leiva himself. The fugitive promptly
fired, but a cartridge exploded in his Winchester, rendering it useless.
An instant later he was shot in the left arm. He was taken to Las Vegas
by way of Puerto de Luna and Anton Chico, speaking very little on
the way except to positively deny that he had murdered Colonel Potter,
even after he was reminded that he had boasted to some sheepherders
of having committed the crime. 6

Leiva was tried on August 18 on the charge of assault with intent
to kill Garrett, found guilty, and fined $80.00. 7 While this may hardly
seem sufficient by our standards, at least it represents some improve-
ment over the $2.50 fine which had been assessed against William Smith
for the attempted murder of one Waldo 8 or perhaps it simply means
that attempting to kill an officer of the law was regarded as a much
more serious crime than was attempting to murder an ordinary citizen.
At this point a difficulty arose. Leiva's presence was greatly desired at
Albuquerque, where, said the Daily Optic, "a grand banquet of hemp
awaits him." 9 Unfortunately, the stranglers had done their work all

5. Ibid., January 30, February 1, February 2, February 4, 1881.

6. Las Vegas Daily Optic, March 18, 1881.

7. Ibid., August 19, 1881.

8. Henry Carroll to Post Adjutant, Fort Stanton, February 2, 1879. Records of the
War Department, Office of the Adjutant General, 1405 AGO 1878 ; Consolidated File
Relating to the Lincoln County War, New Mexico. National Archives.

9. Las Vegas Daily Optic, August 18, 1881.

82 NEW MEXICO HISTORICAL REVIEW

too well. With the witnesses to Potter's murder dead and buried, no
one was left to testify against Leiva. However, he was still vulnerable
on a charge of stealing stock, a much more serious matter than was an
attempt to murder a sheriff. Found guilty as charged, he was sentenced
to seven years and started for Leavenworth, Kansas, on April 5, 1882,
to serve his sentence. 10

Note: The writer is indebted to Warden Harold A. Cox, Peniten-
tiary of New Mexico, for assistance in gathering data on Leiva's career.

Philip J. Rasch

A NEW ENGLANDER IN NEW MEXICO

Among the countless easterners who went West in the mid-nineteenth
century there were several members of the prominent Wolcott family of
New England. This illustrious family has included three governors of
Connecticut, one governor of Massachusetts, a signer of the Declaration
of Independence, and an impressive list of cabinet officials, members of
Congress, generals and judges. The earliest man to bear the name in
America was Henry Wolcott, who settled first in Dorchester, Massa-
chusetts in 1630, but soon moved to Windsor, Connecticut. After two
centuries of residence in New England at least one branch of the Wol-
cotts went West. One of them was the author of the interesting letter
that follows.

In 1859 Reverend Samuel Wolcott, a Congregational minister from
Yale College, moved his family from Longmeadow, Mass., to Chicago,
Illinois, and in 1862 to Cleveland, Ohio. Several of the sons in the family
sought more adventure and moved still further on. The most prominent
member of this generation was Edward Oliver Wolcott, a railroad
lawyer and powerful Republican politician in Colorado. He served as
United States Senator from Colorado 1899 to 1901. Amongst some mis-
cellaneous papers of Senator Wolcott, recently acquired by the author,
there is a letter written by his eldest brother Samuel. The latter, who
has no particular claim to historical remembrance, made a trip through
New Mexico in 1879 and wrote at least one letter describing his expe-
riences. This letter to an unidentified "Clara" perhaps a relative,
friend or sweetheart gives a few interesting sidelights on conditions
in New Mexico, especially on Indian life.

Frances G. Walett
Professor of History
Worcester, Mass.

Socorro, N. M., Aug. 20, 1879
Dear Clara,

Have always had considerable curiosity in regard to this country
which lies above me on the Rio Grande and am right glad now that

10. Ibid., April 6, 1882.

NOTES 83

I decided to go home this way as it has been the means of giving me
some views and experiences different from what I have ever encoun-
tered before and which the Railroad will make impossible in another
year or two.

The Railroad ends at Las Vegas. From there I took a stage over the
mountains to Santa Fe. The journey passed without incident but the
same coach and driver on their return next day were stopped by
Robbers who searched persons and baggage for money and valuables
cut open the mail sacks and finally took away the horses leaving the
passengers to pursue their course afoot and without money. Santa Fe is
a pleasant old town very similar to Santonio [sic] Texas in population
and habits of the people. No one knows how old the town is but about
fifty years before the Pilgrims landed at Plymouth the Spanish took
possession made Roman Catholics of the people imposed their language
on them and there has been no change since then. For over thirty years
it has been military headquarters and Capital of one of our Territories
but the Americans have made no impression on the Mexican population.

I have often heard of palaces and at Santa Fe there exists a genu-
ine palace over two hundred years old where the Deputies of the King
of Spain used to live when Spain was the richest and most powerful
Kingdom in the world. Of course I went to see the Palace. It is built of
mud as in fact are most of the residences in New Mexico.

I was very much interested in a visit which I paid to one of these
Indian Pueblos as they are called.

The Pueblo which I visited is called YSLETA and consists of over
a hundred families which live in adobe houses of two or three rooms
each crowded close together. I suppose their ancestors have occupied the
houses for a thousand years. They have no chairs or other superfluous
furniture. The mattresses and blankets which they sleep on at night are
piled against the walls of the rooms and serve for seats during the day.

They use their own vernacular in conversation with each other but
understand enough Spanish so that I could get along with them. Each
family has a farm of from fifty to a hundred acres outside of the settle-
ment and are much more industrious than the Mexicans. Everyone raises
corn wheat and vegetables besides grapes pears and peaches. In each
man's field there is a platform erected overlooking the whole field and a
sort of canopy erected over this platform out of bushes and weeds mak-
ing it shady and comfortable. All through the fruit season the women
bring their sewing and sit on the platform through the day and the man
himself watches at night to see that his neighbors do not get away with
his fruit.

The men wear their hair long and dress in the traditional Indian
custom and the women dress uniformly in a costume which is doubtless
inherited. Their skirts cloak etc reach only to the Knees, below they
wrap their calves with a sort of white cotton duck various folds about
half an inch thick. Of course they all wear mocassins.

Yesterday the driver broke the tongue of the coach and transferred

84 NEW MEXICO HISTORICAL REVIEW

us three passengers to an open lumber wagon. At the next station they
hitched into the wagon the four powerful and fat horses which are
accustomed to pull the heavy coach. The wagon weighed nothing to them.
In a very few minutes they stampeded and we had a magnificent run-
away for about three miles splashing through irrigating ditches and
bounding along with the wagon apparently in the air most of the time.
Finally I took the lines of the wheel horses and held them down in the
trail while the driver threw his weight onto the lines of the leaders,
the lines all held, nothing broke about the wagon and I am here to
write about it. The other two passengers jumped out but nobody was
hurt.

Affectionately

Sam

Preparatory to reading the two letters below, see William
J. Parish, "The German Jew and the Commercial Revolution
in Territorial New Mexico 1850-1900," in the New Mexico
Historical Review, April, 1960. F. D. R.

March 12, 1960
Wm. J. Parish, Dean
College of Business Administration,
The University of New Mexico,
Albuquerque, N. Mex.
Dear Dean Parish,

I have your letter of March 8 and am happy to give you some of
the answers you requested.

In your third paragraph you ask about the relationship between
Sam and Julius Freudenthal. Sam's father was Joseph who was a
brother of Julius.

In the fourth paragraph you mention the biography of Isadore
Elkan Solomon (by his grandson A. I. Ramenof sky) . I believe you are
referring to Mrs. Abe Ramenofsky, rather than her husband Doctor
Ramenof sky, as I know she was the one who prepared the material you
quote from. Mrs. Ramenofsky is a grand daughter of Mr. Isadore Elkan

Solomon.

* * *

Yours sincerely,
LEF/h L.E. Freudenthal

May 27, 1960
Dear Dean Parish:

I just had the opportunity to read the second installment of your
article in the New Mexico Historical Review on the German-Jew. I
enjoyed it thoroughly. It is extremely well written and brought out

NOTES 85

many interesting aspects of the effect of these immigrants on life in the
territorial days.

I note that I made an error in my memorandum of March 2 wherein
I stated that Adolph Jacoby founded a business in "Paraje, now called
Colorado." I should, of course, have said the business was founded in
Colorado, now called Rodey.

There are a few minor points which you may wish for your records.

(1) My father, Phoebus Freudenthal, was active in political life in Dona
Ana County, serving seven terms as County Treasurer.

(2) Your table No. 3, Page 133, does not include Julius Freudenthal
who was in business in Belen in the early 1840's, thereby being one
of the first in this area.

(3) Julius Freudenthal was married in Belen to a Miss Bazan of Mexi-
can-Spanish descent. I note there is a Bazanville on the outskirts of
Belen. I do not know if there is any connection with her family.

(5) I believe that I wrote you previously that your reference to "A
biography of Isador Elkan Solomon by his grandson A. I. Rame-
nofsky" is incorrect. The biography was prepared by his grand-
daughter Mrs. A. I. Ramenofsky.
With Best Wishes

Yours sincerely,

L. E. Freudenthal

LEF/h

The following correspondence will be of use to those who
have occasion to read James Colquhoun, The Early History of
The Clifton-Morenci District. Printed for Private Circulation
by William Clowes and Son, Ltd., London and Beccles. F. D. R.

Prof. Frank D. Reeve
Library Building 211
University of New Mexico,
Albuquerque, N. Mex.
Dear Professor Reeve,

I have delayed answering yours of March 11 until I was able to
secure a copy of the "Early History of the Clifton-Morenci Mining Dis-
trict" by James Colquhoun. This is a gift to you from Mrs. Helen Katz,
West End Avenue at 95th Street, New York 25, N.Y. I trust you will
send her an acknowledgment of the gift. Mrs. Katz, for your informa-
tion, is the daughter of Charles Lesinsky, who was a brother of Henry
Lesinsky. I am sending the book under separate cover.

I am also enclosing the original letter from the author to Mrs. Katz,

86 NEW MEXICO HISTORICAL REVIEW

dated February 1935 and a letter to me from Leo Lesinsky, brother of

Helen Katz, who expresses some interesting comments about the book.

* * *

Yours sincerely,

L. E. Freudenthal
h/LEF

enc. 2 letters.

cc. Mrs. Helen Katz

West End Avenue at 95th Street,

New York 25, N.Y.

Hotel Marcy

West End Avenue at 95th St.

New York 25

April 5/60
Dear Louis,

I am sending here with the copy of Colquhoun's book you asked for.
You will see that it was sent to Helen 25 years ago.

I have just re-read the book and I think that the author has not
always stuck to the facts. Henry Lesinsky's part in the development of
the mines is exaggerated at the expense of Julius Freudenthal and my
father. I know that he did not arrive on the scene until Julius and
Charles were there he says so himself in his letters to his son, Albert,
which Albert published privately.

As for the amount received for the mines, my father often told me
that they did not receive the entire $1,200,000. And it was not divided
equally between Julius, Henry & Charles. Charles received $250,000,
and the balance was divided between Julius & Henry, Julius receiving
the larger amount.

* * *

Love from Helen &

Yours truly,

LeoL.

Hotel Del Monte
Del Monte, California

llth Feb. 1935
My dear Mrs. Katz,

Many thanks for a very charming letter of appreciation, which gave
me something pleasant to think about.

I am so glad that the tribute which I paid to your father and to
those who were with him has been received in such a nice spirit.

Believe me

Yours sincerely

James Colquhoun

NOTES 87

Mesilla Park, New Mexico

March 6, 1960

Dear Frank :

* * *

The articles dealing with this part of the state in the last issue of
the Historical Review were far from inspired. The site of the marker
designating the Battle of Brazito is correct. Neither the Conklings or
Mr. Anderson consulted the maps of the Brazito Grant made by Stephen
Archer in 1856 for the benefit of the court and at its order for adjudi-
cation of ownership. The old buildings at that place and the relics of the
battle were still visible in 1903 when the Grant was sold in subdivided
farms. The promoters, Galaher and Edwards, marked the spot on the
highway opposite the battle. Locally it is known as the battle of Temas-
calitos since it was fought near a collection of Apache bathing huts.
That name does not come from the peaked mountains some six miles
away.

In its first installment, the article on Jewish merchants is applicable
only to that portion of New Mexico north of Socorro. South of that
place, merchandising was usually a means of financing mining, ranching
or land development or a combination of the three. The Lesinskys, Freu-
denthals and Frank Winston are notable examples. A notable omission
among the names was that of Louis Rosenbaum who, after making a
fortune in New Mexico, went east and took over a little gyp firm of Sears
and Roebuck which he made respectable and prosperous. The Lohmans

are mentioned but they were not Jews.

* * *

Sincerely,

Adlai [G. A. Feather]

At Sea
6 June 1960
Prof. F. D. Reeve
Univ. of New Mexico
Library Bldg. 211
Albuquerque, N.M.
Dear Professor Reeve,

Due to the throes of moving back to the States, I am quite late in
replying to your letter of 3 May. Indeed I have no objection to your
publishing my letter agreeing with Armstrong's conclusions as to the
location of the Brazito battlefield.

This is the sort of sincere disagreement that often produces infor-
mation sources generally unknown. I am very interested in hearing the
basis of Mr. Feather's exceptions to Mr. Armstrong's deductions and
also mine. Maybe he has dug up something which we should all be inter-
ested in if it assists in solving this fascinating historical question. I
myself spent several years digging into everything I could find relative
to Brazito, rode and walked over most of the ground between Berino

88 NEW MEXICO HISTORICAL REVIEW

and Mesilla Park for many years, and based my conclusion on three
independent areas of investigation: accounts of distances by partici-
pants on both sides, matching terrain descriptions by participants on
both sides with the actual terrain, and restitution of the course of the
Rio Grande in 1850 on to a modern map to see where the significant
bends of the river 100 years ago would be located today. All three lines
of investigation came to about the same area just north of present
day Berino.

I think that it is a fine thing, that after so long some interest has
been aroused in one of New Mexico's landmarks and especially since it
is the only one related to a conflict in the Mexican War. I'll be visiting
the Mesilla Valley area within two months and plan to see Mr. Feather
maybe one of us can persuade the other he's right.

Sincerely,

George Ruhlen
Col US Army

^Mexico

Historical l^eview

alace of the Governors, Santa Fe

1961

April, 1961

Editors
FRANK D. REEVE PAUL A. F. WALTER

Associates

PERCY M. BALDWIN GEORGE P. HAMMOND

FRANCE V. SCHOLES ELEANOR B. ADAMS

BRUCE T. ELLIS

VOL. XXXVI APRIL, 1961 No. 2

CONTENTS

Page
A Ride from Geronimo, The Apache

Nellie Brown Powers 89

Pascual Orozco: Chihuahua Rebel

Paige W. Christiansen 97

British Investment and the American Mining Frontier, 1860-1914

Clark C. Spence 121

Frank Bond : Gentleman Sheepherder of Northern New Mexico,
1883-1915 (continued)

Frank H. Grubbs 138

West of the Pecos (concluded)

E. L. Steve Stephens 159

Notes and Documents 175

Book Review 176

THE NEW MEXICO HISTORICAL REVIEW is published jointly by the
Historical Society of New Mexico and the University of New Mexico.
Subscription to the REVIEW is by membership in the Society open to all.
Dues, including subscription, $5.00 annually, in advance. Single num-
bers, except a few which have become scarce, are $1.00 each. For further
information regarding back files and other publications available, see
back cover.

Membership dues and other business communications should be ad-
dressed to the Historical Society of New Mexico, Box 1727, Santa Fe,
N. M. Manuscripts and editorial correspondence should be addressed
to Prof. Frank D. Reeve, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, N. M.

Entered as second-class matter at Santa Fe, New Mexico
PRINTED AT THE UNIVERSITY OF NEW MEXICO, ALBUQUERQUE

NEW MEXICO HISTORICAL
REVIEW

VOL. XXXVI APRIL, 1961 No. 2

A RIDE FROM GERONIMO, THE APACHE
By NELLIE BROWN POWERS

NATURE'S skilled Hand never placed among the wild beau-
ties of the far West, a lovelier spot than the little nook
called the Double Spring Ranch, located in southwestern New
Mexico, where my family were living in 1885. The home ranch
land lay in a small basin, which was carpeted with green luxu-
riant grasses and studded with the most beautiful of wild
flowers. Rock-ribbed mountains and towering peaks, like an
irregular broken wall, shut in this lovely valley as though it
were an Eden which should have been guarded forever from
the foot of man.

Nearby were the Mogollon Range of mountains, and about
three miles away the Gila River flowed, rushing as fast as a
horse could trot, through an immense canyon, the walls of
which were so high that when viewing the river from the top
rim, it looked as though I could step across it.

There were two log cabins and a stockade corral on the
ranch. Fred and Darius, my two older brothers, lived in the
smaller of the two cabins, down near the corral. I, a young
lady of eighteen years, lived with my parents, Henry and
Sally Ann Brown, in the more pretentious large log cabin,
which consisted of two bedrooms and a large living, cooking,
and eating room.

This large room had a large open fireplace and when the
evenings were cool it was a delight to pile the pinon knots into
the fire and hear them crackle. There was also a piano in this
room. The piano had been shipped from the east, and the
Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railroad had brought it to
Magdalena. It had been hauled across the plains of San

89

90 NEW MEXICO HISTORICAL REVIEW

Augustine to the ranch. I loved to play the piano and the boys
were good singers. After Mother and I were through for the
day with the household duties of cooking, she would pick up
her knitting and with a warm fire blazing on the hearth my
brothers would sing while I played the piano. Come Back to
Erin, Carry Me Back to Old Virginny and Sweet Violets were
always favorites with the boys.

During the daytime Fred, Darius and father were busy
with usual ranch duties. Timber was plentiful and there were
numerous silver aspens and tall pines. They had built a fine
stockade corral and were busy with fence building and cattle
raising.

At the side of the large cabin, a cascade of water came
leaping down from a large spring, throwing its crystal spray
in the sunlight, until the air seemed filled with a shower of
diamonds. Below the cabin, the running water met another
little stream which came from a smaller spring. The two
streams became a sparkling purling brook which in its on-
ward flow filled the air with the rhythm of lapping waters.
The brook, in its downward flight, became a creek which
flowed a mile below us into a stupendous canyon. The two
springs gave inspiration for the name of the ranch, the Double
Spring.

In this year of 1885, we were about one hundred and thirty
miles from a railroad, eighty miles from the nearest post-
office, and fifteen miles distant from our nearest neighbors,
who lived on the N-Bar Ranch, yet no thought of fear or
danger ever entered my mind.

Many a day I rode on my little mustang pony and followed
trails up and down from the Gila River, in places where the
pony, because of the steepness of the terrain, would cross his
front feet. At other times I would walk off with my faithful
dog, Bringer, and with my small pearl-handled Smith and
Wesson six-shooter, I would practice hitting a mark.

With the mountains, the clearest of atmospheres, the
brightest of skies, and the fairest of landscapes, this place was
ideal for Sunday worship. Bringer seemed to know when it
was Sunday and he would start on ahead of us as we went to
God's Church, the great out-of-doors, under His blue sky to

GERONIMO 91

a place near the Gila River. Father would read from the
Bible and there would be prayers. The Lord was Our
Shepherd.

One morning, very early, I heard a horseman ride by our
cabin very fast. He stopped at the little cabin below us where
Fred and Darius slept. Soon after we had heard the sound of
hoof beats, my brother Fred knocked urgently on our cabin
door. I heard father quickly answer the knock and as Fred
came in the door he said, "Get up quick, the Apaches are at
the N-Bar ranch, only fifteen miles away, coming this way,
and we must get out of here !"

We got up in a hurry, but our faces were white and our
hands trembled as we dressed. We looked around the ranch
for means of escape, but the harness for the two horses father
drove with the buckboard was away at the Gila ranch and no
one dared leave to go after it. The next move was to cut off
the rooster's head, for Chanticleer could make no sweet music
to our ears on such a morning.

It was then suggested that we all go up to the old fort,
located on a high hill close by. We would build it up as best we
could, take our ammunition and provisions and stay there.
We set out as soon as possible for the old fort with as agile
footsteps as the red-skins could have made.

We stayed at the old fort two days, keeping at all times a
sharp look around. At the end of the two days, two cowboys
driving a herd of cattle put in an appearance. Fred met them
and told them of the horseman's story. The cowboys thought
that we had listened to an unfounded rumor. They said that
the Apaches were not off the reservation.

We believed the cowboys' story and went back to the
cabins. The boys were soon busy chopping down trees and
building fences, never stopping to think how far the ring of
a woodsman's ax could be heard.

At the end of another three days Fred saddled up and
packing another horse, he set out for Kingston to get the mail.
One day, and the early part of another, slipped by when all
at once our little valley was full of horsemen, about thirty in
number. Their panting horses showed how hard they had
ridden.

92 NEW MEXICO HISTORICAL REVIEW

Fred had met the horsemen after he had traveled part way
to Kingston for the mail. They told him they were glad to see
that he was alive, and that they were on their way to see if
the Browns were still alive, for Geronimo and his braves were
on the warpath.

Fred's eyes streamed with tears of joy that we were alive
and safe. His lips told us of the deeds of murder, blood-shed,
and pillage that Geronimo and his painted demons had com-
mitted. Though greatly perturbed, Fred had thought to bring
back the harness for the two horses which father drove with
the buckboard.

We were almost the last settlers who had not left the
country for places of safety in the towns. By this time the
country was full of Indians, and there had been much specu-
lation as to whether we at the Double Spring Ranch were
among the missing ones.

With an old Indian fighter, Mr. Judge Moore, at their
head, these horsemen had determined to come after us. Uncle
Sam, also, had his troops scattered around, and, no doubt, if
those beautiful cavalry horses could have stood the climate,
Geronimo and his Indians would have been soon rounded up
and captured. The U. S. Cavalry horses could not follow a trail
day after day like the native pony, and they soon hobbled and
numbers of them died, and I think some of the soldiers lost
their lives.

"A squadron of cavalry riding slow

Crosses the plains in search of the foe,

Which rides ever ahead.

The red man's trail may be plain to the eye,

And hunters may chase as the crow doth fly

They will ever be led,

For the red man rides with lightning speed.

No rest for rider, no rest for steed

'Till the hidden lair is won.

The soldier in chase may tire or fall,

Worn by the race, or struck by a ball,

Leaving his work undone." Anonymous

We soon had our preparations made to leave the Double

GERONIMO 93

Spring. The doors and windows of the cabins were boarded
up and nailed shut. An inscription, "Look Out for Indians"
was nailed on the door, so that if any lone cowboy or pros-
pector came that way he would be warned.

According to orders, the company was to be divided. Part
of the horsemen were to go ahead, and part were to follow.
Father and mother, riding in the buckboard, and I on my pony
were to be in the middle of the two groups of horsemen. No
one was to shoot unless they saw an Indian.

I turned for one last look at the beautiful peaceful little
valley, in whose bosom we had started our home. I whistled
for Bringer, who for some unaccountable reason could not be
induced to leave the cabin door. Afterwards, I often won-
dered if the coyote that used to come out in the open and howl
so much, knew what became of him. You would have thought
there was a pack of fifty coyotes when you heard that one
howl.

Our first stop after leaving the Double Spring Ranch was
Indian Springs, five miles from the ranch, where we saw
moccasin tracks. This place was probably the nearest they
had come to us on the ranch. We went on through canyons
and over hills and around rocks with but one thought in our
minds, and that was to find a place of safety. We rode all day
long under the turquoise sky and we saw no one. Once we
ran into a heard of antelope on a mesa, but they were anxious
to put space between us, and their nimble feet took them off
in a hurry.

Just before sunset, we espied a little cabin off the main
road, to our left. We did not intend to stop here, but the
leaders of our little band decided to investigate the premises
and see if there were any signs of Indian work. The signs were
instantly noticeable. The owner of the little mountain home
lay dead on his own woodpile. All that was left of any worth
was his own gun leaning up against a large leafy pine some
forty yards from the cabin. This was mute evidence that the
stealthy sneak had come between the man and his only
defense.

This man had been the owner of a fine time-piece, a large
clock. The clock had been torn apart and most thoroughly

94 NEW MEXICO HISTORICAL REVIEW

dissected. The clock had so intrigued the red skin that the
man's gun went unnoticed or forgotten. Later we heard of an
Apache who wore a long string of clock wheels for ear-rings.

It was determined that the dead man's name was Papa-
naugh. The men dug a grave and buried the body. I wish I
could forget the horror and anguish of that sad funeral.
Though the Almighty seemed to breathe with us in our
prayers and fears, we were shocked and terror-stricken by
the murderous death.

We would not, dare not, stay there so pushed on up one
slope and down another until we had crossed the Continental
Divide. Soon after, we drew rein at the Adobe Ranch to rest,
as best we could, through the night. The Adobe Ranch was a
deserted shambles and had been torn all to pieces.

The moon came up and the night seemed almost as bright
as the day. An old newspaper was handed to me, and I found
I could read common print quite readily. The horses munched
their feed and in the silvery gleam of moonlight we could see
the landscape for miles around us. The scenery was richly
colored, picturesque, and magnificent. Soon we saw a fire
appear on one of the high hills and then another quite a dis-
tance away. The old Indian fighter told us these were Indian
signal fires, set by the Indians as a means of communication
between marauding bands. The wonder of that anxious night
lives vividly in my memory, as I was most alert.

Day dawned and we saddled up and took the trail which led
through Corduroy Canyon. It was thought that if any danger
was to be faced, it would be in this Canyon. It was said that
possibly Indians were awaiting us here. It was a likely place
for an ambush, so the directions were given to ride fast. If
any shots came our way, our safety would lie in the speed of
a fast ride. A sense of urgency seemed to hover over us.

The clatter of the horses hooves on the solid rock of the
canyon floor and the noise created by the old bake-kettle,
which had broken loose in the back of the buckboard, and was
rolling back and forth, back and forth, created a terrific din.
While the kettle continued to roll back and forth in the back
of the buckboard, and the buckboard was proceeding at full
speed ahead, with father holding the reins, a shot rang out !

GERONIMO 95

Immediately following the shot, the command, "To the
Hills, To the Hills for your lives !" was shouted. The mustangs
in the rear of the group scaled the walls of the canyon up over
steep rocks where it would seem a man could scarcely climb,
if on foot. The riders held their guns in their hands ready to
shoot the instant an Indian was sighted. A saddle girth broke,
then the pony bucked and off went his rider, saddle and all,
in a heap. The bronc with head up charged away.

I leaned over and patted my pony's neck and he replied
with a low neigh. I reached in my saddle pocket for the little
six-shooter. My hand did not tremble now as I cocked it, for
I thought, "I'm in for it, I'll fight, but I'll die game like an
American girl."

This all happened in less time than it takes to tell it, and
no Indian appeared on the scene. One of our party who had
ridden very fast and was far ahead, now came riding back in
a rush, to tell us that his gun was discharged by accident. We
began to breathe more freely.

After a hard chase, the men captured the unruly pony
and gathering the procession together again, we proceeded
all day without further interruption.

Away ahead of us, we saw the little mining town of Fair-
view appear in the distance. The people were waiting for us
with that open-hearted hospitality which exists in a new
country.

(Dear (?) old long-gone-Geronimo, I have always been
thankful that my scalp never came to rest as an ornament for
your belt. I have heard that red was your favorite color, and
my hair was a lively curly red.)

A nearness of five miles to the Apaches was a plenty, and
though I have since heard that Geronimo had a change of
heart, I would not care to play the game of running from the
Apaches, again.

I will never forget that just as the sun went down on May
28, 1885, I slid from my saddle into my brother's arms with
such a sense of weariness and complete exhaustion that I
fainted away. Even so, my brother Darius said, "Nell was the
grittiest girl in all New Mexico Territory during the Indian
raid of 1885."

96 NEW MEXICO HISTORICAL REVIEW

A Tribute to Geronimo

"The grandest old pagan this continent has produced was
Geronimo, the Apache, who has at last gone to the Happy
Hunting Grounds, where he may expect a lot of trouble. In
all the annals of the human race there is no finer picture of
a brute. If there is anything in the theory of the transmigra-
tion of souls, Geronimo must have descended from a Bengal
Tiger, although that seems hardly fair to the tiger.

There is nothing admirable from a civilized standpoint
in the life of this man, but as an exemplification of the powers
of a human being at his worst, he is an interesting study. He
played the game to the limit without restrictions and, judged
from his own standards of ethics, was a success, as the
bleached bones of thousands of his victims testify. There need
be no mock heroics over his death. He was a bad man, a worse
than useless man. A man who could be spared and who ought
to have been spared about eighty years ago."

Philadelphia Enquirer
* * *

The story, "A Ride from Geronimo, the Apache," was
written in February 1909, by my mother, Nellie Brown
Powers. Mother was of Scotch-Irish-English descent and,
after reading this Tribute, she was moved to put into words
her own story, which is, to quote mother, "As truly and cor-
rectly written as I could dig it up from the recesses of my
memory."

The old Indian fighter, Mr. Judge Moore, was the oldest
brother of Carrie Nation.

Isabel Powers Crutchett
4827 Lomitas Dr.
San Diego 16, Calif.

[A point of view of bygone days. Would that the Redman had
written too. F.D.R.]

[NEW MEXICO HISTORICAL REVIEW, VoL 36, No. 2. April, 1961]

PASCUAL OROZCO: CHIHUAHUA REBEL
Episodes in the Mexican Revolution, 1910-1915

By PAIGE W. CHRISTIANSEN*

Before the nature and character of the Mexican Revolu-
tion can be fully understood, the men, their motives, their
actions, and their characters must be sorted out, understood,
and then fitted back into their historical context. To know
only the major leaders, presidents or presidential candidates,
or only the major revolutionary plans, is to ignore the very
essence of the Revolution. This movement, which began in
1910, is too important to Mexico and all of Latin America to
rest upon inadequate historical knowledge. The story of
Pascual Orozco, Jr., storekeeper, mule skinner, freighter,
general, and bandit, is an example of one man of the Revolu-
tion who is known and yet unknown. Deeply influenced by
regional factors and by his environment, Orozco became the
symbol of revolution to many of the people of Chihuahua.

On the evening of November 19, 1910, in the village of San
Isidro, Chihuahua, Pascual Orozco pronounced himself in
rebellion against the government of Porfirio Diaz. 1 This was
part of a chain of events that resulted in the crushing of
federal forces in the state of Chihuahua and finally in the
collapse of the long Diaz dictatorship. It was also the begin-
ning of a short but brilliant career for Pascual Orozco, whose
subsequent actions had a direct bearing on the success and
fall of Francisco Madero and Victoriano Huerta. The story of
Orozco is also, in part, the story of Chihuahua during the
chaotic period from 1910 to 1915.

A brief background will help set the stage for Orozco's
activities. Northern Mexico was the natural theater for stag-
ing the revolt against Diaz, and Chihuahua was especially
well suited as the battleground. The proximity of the United

* Assistant Professor of Humanities, New Mexico Institute of Mining and Tech-
nology, Socorro, New Mexico.

1. Juan Gualberto Amaya, Madero y los aut4nticos revolutionaries de 1910 (Mexico,
1943), p. 103 ; Gustavo Casasola, ed., Historia grdfica de la, revolution, 1900-1940 (Mexico,
n.d.), I, 210, says Orozco pronounced on November 20; Joaquin Marquez Montiel, S.J.,
Hombres ceUbres de Chihuahua (Mexico, 1958), pp. 220-222.

97

98 NEW MEXICO HISTORICAL REVIEW

States border, the presence of a frontier society, the remote-
ness of the northern states from Mexico City, regional eco-
nomic interests, and the importance of the main line railroads
which traversed the north, all played a role in centering revo-
lutionary activity in this area. Added to these general con-
siderations was the agitation of the Mexican Liberal Party
which had resisted Diaz for many years. 2

By 1908, political and economic conditions across northern
Mexico had reached a critical stage. To further complicate the
situation a financial crisis and recession in the United States
reached Chihuahua in June, 1908, causing serious unemploy-
ment. There followed a number of incidents which were to
leave the northern border, particularly Chihuahua, in an
extremely nervous and tense state. On June 19, twenty Mexi-
cans were arrested at Casas Grandes for a proposed plan to
seize the Union Mercantile store at Dublan and the Ketelsen
and Degonau's store at Casas Grandes. Both establishments
had substantial quantities of arms and ammunition in stock. 3
The same day arrests were made at Nueva Casas Grandes.
Among those arrested was Santa Ana Perez, who had led sev-
eral attacks on the Palomas, Mexico, customs house in 1893. 4
Nineteen of those arrested were indicted for revolutionary
activity June 21. The rest, including Perez, were released. 5

Three other serious raids took place toward the end of
June, 1908. One at Villa Viesca in Coahuila, where raiders
robbed the post office, bank, and express office and fled toward

2. For general conditions and events leading to the 1910 rebellion see U. S. National
Archives, Marion Letcher, consul, to W. J. Bryan, Sec. of State, Chihuahua, Mexico,
October 17, 1913, file No. 812.00/9484, in Bancroft Library Microfilm Collection,
Cumberland Film. Hereafter microfilmed Ms. from this collection will be cited as
National Archives with appropriate Ms. information. For a discussion of the whole
problem of the free zone, free ports, economic conditions, and northern sectionalism see
Ulises Irigoyen, El problema economico de las fronteras Mexicanaa (Mexico, 1935), 2 vols.,
passim. For a detailed account of the activities and political ideas of the Flores Magon
brothers see Myra Ellen Jenkins, "Ricardo Flores Magon and the Mexican Liberal Party,
1900-1922," unpublished Ms., The University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, 1953. Some of
the violence in Chihuahua is described in Charles Kindrick, consul, to William Day,
Asst. Sec. of State, Cuidad Juarez, Feb. 17, 1898, in U. S. National Archives, Microfilm
Publications, Consular Dispatches, Ciudad Juarez, Mexico. Hereafter cited as Microfilm
Publications with appropriate information.

3. The Mexican Herald, Mexico City, 1898-1914, daily, June 20, 1908. Hereafter cited
as Herald.

4. Ibid., June 20, 1908 ; Thomas Cattam Romney, The Mormon Colonies in Mexico
(Salt Lake City, 1938), pp. 310-314.

5. Herald, June 21, 1908.

OROZCO 99

Torreon. Torreon was placed in a state of emergency and
1,000 federal troops were placed in the field to pursue the
raiders. 6 At Las Vacas, across the border from Del Rio, Texas,
a group of Mexican rebels, organized and armed in the United
States, attacked the federal garrison. They immediately re-
turned to the United States, closely pursued by Mexican
police. 7 On June 19, a small band of twenty to forty men made
an attack at Casas Grandes. This same group attacked Palo-
mas June 30. There was some evidence that this group was
organized in the United States since a band of Mexicans was
reported seen near Columbus, New Mexico, prior to the
attack. 8 For the most part these disturbances were not rebel-
lions but rather protests of hungry and jobless men easily
persuaded to violence.

The uprisings or raids of 1908, minor though they were,
succeeded in stirring up and increasing the general unrest,
and coupled with the growth of the anti-reelection movement,
they set the stage for open rebellion in Chihuahua. A cause
was needed, and a leader. Madero became the symbol and
inspiration, but real leadership in Chihuahua was to rise from
among the many men who led local rebellions in November,
1910.

The pronouncement of rebellion by Pascual Orozco at San
Isidro was only one among many such declarations issued in
Chihuahua on November 19 and 20, 1910, in answer to the call
of Madero and in the name of the Plan of San Luis Potosi.
Near San Andres, Chihuahua, Cerferno Perez, Francisco
Villa, and Castulo Herrera declared their rebellion and moved
to attack San Andres, a main point on the Mexican North-
western Railroad. In Parral, Guillermo Baca, Pedro T. Gomez,
and Miguel Baca Ronquillos, supported by three hundred
men, temporarily drove federal troops from the city. In Te-
mosachic, Chihuahua, Jose la Luz Blanco "pronounced" and
moved to join Orozco near Ciudad Guerrero, Chihuahua. 9
There were also uprisings near Casas Grandes and Ojinaga.

6. Ibid., June26 and 27, 1908.

7. Ibid., June 28, 1908.

8. Ibid., July 1, 1908.

9. Amaya, pp. 105-108 ; Casasola, I, 213-215 ; Alfonso Taracena, Mi vida, en el
vertigo de la revolution Mexicana: anales sinticos (Mexico, 1936), p. 102.

100 NEW MEXICO HISTORICAL REVIEW

For the most part these small isolated groups were unable to
hold their initial gains, and there was little or no conscious
co-operation between them.

To successfully follow the rise of a revolutionary leader in
Chihuahua it is necessary to return to San Isidro and the
activities of Pascual Orozco. He did not hold leadership alone
at the beginning of action in the District of Guerrero, Chihua-
hua. Don Albino Frias, Sr., claimed equal or predominant
leadership, which was respected by Orozco. Their first action
came on November 19, 1910, and was aimed at Mifiaca, Chi-
huahua, which they captured with ease. Frias was in com-
mand at Mifiaca and Orozco second in command. Victor
Amaya, an eye witness historian to many of the events of
the 1910 revolution, called Frias "the first chief of the revolu-
tion in Chihuahua." From Mifiaca, the small column counter-
marched to San Isidro which fell to them on November 20.
With two minor objectives taken, and their forces growing,
Frias and Orozco ordered an attack on Ciudad Guerrero. The
initial assault against this stronger federal garrison was
repulsed but the rebels surrounded the town and prepared
for further assaults. 10

The forces of Castulo Herrera and Francisco Villa uncon-
sciously aided this campaign. Colonel Yepes, moving from
Chihuahua City with reinforcements for Ciudad Guerrero,
was ambushed on November 23 at San Andres by the forces
of Herrera and Villa. 11 While the federal column was not de-
stroyed, it was forced to halt its advance on Ciudad Guerrero,
stopping at Pedernales. 12 Villa and Herrera continued toward
Chihuahua City after their partial success at San Andres.
They penetrated as far as Santa Isabel before they were
turned back and dispersed by General Juan Navarro who was
moving west with a large force to put an end to revolutionary
activity in western Chihuahua. 13 Villa and a few of his men
hurried across country toward Cuidad Guerrero to join a
junta of revolutionary leaders suggested by Orozco. 14 The

10. Amaya, p. 104, 110 ; Casasola, I, 210.

11. Casasola, I, 214-215 ; Taracena, p. 102.

12. Casasola, I, 214-215.

13. Amaya, p. 108.

14. Casasola, I, 213-214.

OROZCO 101

timely independent action of Villa and Herrera at San Andres
allowed Frias and Orozco to consolidate their forces for a final
assault on Ciudad Guerrero.

Learning of the movements of Navarro, Frias dispatched
Orozco to Pedernales with a small force to stop or delay the
federals while pressure was continued on Ciudad Guerrero.
Orozco set a successful ambush on November 26, and com-
pletely routed the advance guard of Navarro's column along
with the remnants of the federal forces that had been waiting
at Pedernales for aid. 15 Another victory secured, Orozco re-
turned to Ciudad Guerrero bringing additional supplies cap-
tured at Pedernales. With the aid of these supplies the rebels
launched a successful attack against Ciudad Guerrero on
December 4, 1910. 16

Following the fall of Ciudad Guerrero, Albino Frias relin-
quished his leadership in favor of Orozco. Upon taking full
command of rebel forces in the District of Guerrero, Chihua-
hua, on December 6, Orozco issued a manifesto to the nation
in which he dedicated himself and his men to the Madero cause
and called for the complete overthrow of the Diaz govern-
ment. 17 Orozco's manifesto was the first formal document
issued by the revolutionary forces actively fighting against
the federal army and Mexican police.

The success of the rebel forces under Frias and Orozco
had an importance way out of proportion to the amount of
men and equipment employed. They were not military engage-
ments between armies, but rather skirmishes between small
rebel bands and isolated federal detachments. They were,
however, of major importance for the future of the revolu-
tion. That they succeeded while other revolutionary activity
generally failed magnified the importance of Minaca, San
Isidro, Pedernales, and Ciudad Guerrero. Initial success had
been attained at Parral, San Andres, Ojinaga, and other spots
of rebellion in Chihuahua, but in no case were the rebel groups
able to consolidate their victories. Shortages of arms, ammu-

15. Amaya, p. 108.

16. Ibid., p. 108 ; Casasola, I, 211, says that the first armed triumph for the Madero
revolution was accomplished by Orozco at Ciudad Guerrero.

17. Francisco Ramirez Plancarte, La revolution Mexicans. (Mexico, 1948), pp. 232-
233 n ; Amaya, p. 110.

102 NEW MEXICO HISTORICAL REVIEW

nition, and food supplies quickly caused their collapse. Orozco
was also faced with serious supply problems after taking
Ciudad Guerrero, and it is a credit to his ability as a leader
that he was able to hold his forces together when they had
little to sustain them in any kind of military action.

Orozco's succession to leadership in the District of Gue-
rrero, coupled with his success against federal troops, drew
the harassed remnants of other revolutionary bands into his
camp. Men like Francisco Villa, Castulo Herrera, and Jose
la Luz Blanco, along with their followers, came together un-
der the command of Orozco to form a loose military unit. 18
The first action of elements of this enlarged command was at
Cerro Prieto where forces under Orozco and Francisco Salido
attacked federal troops commanded by General Navarro. The
fight at Cerro Prieto was the first in which rebel forces could
be called an army with a chain of command and a predeter-
mined battle plan, informal though it was. The fight also set
a precedent: prisoners were not taken alive by either side.
The battle was lost, but the "army" of Chihuahua retained its
character and its discipline. The rebels were forced to retire
to their strongholds around Ciudad Guerrero. 19

During January, 1911, Orozco, still centering his activities
around Ciudad Guerrero, met federal troops in several en-
gagements. They successfully ambushed a federal column at
Mai Paso January 2, la Luz Blanco co-operating with Orozco
in this attack. 20 On January 7, Orozco attacked a military sup-
ply train at Minaca which was to supply General Navarro,
who was marching on Ciudad Guerrero. Although this de-
prived Navarro of needed supplies, Orozco realized that he
would be unable to maintain his position at Ciudad Guerrero
and he ordered a retreat into the mountains of western Chi-

18. Bakersfield Californian, Dec. 13, 1910 ; A letter from Orozco to Francisco Salido
indicates this loose association and their method of operation, Orozco to Salido, Peder-
nales, Mexico, Dec. 11, 1910, trans., in U. S. Department of State, Papers Relating to
the Foreign Relations of the United States (Washington, 1863-194-), 1911, 412-413.
Hereafter cited as Foreign Relations with appropriate date.

19. Bakersfield Californian, Dec. 14, 1910 ; Casasola, I, 224 ; Pascual Ortiz Rubio,
La revolucion de 1910, apuntes historical (Mexico, 1929), p. 177.

20. "Survey of the World," Independent, LXX, 7 (Jan. 5, 1911). Hereafter cited
only as Independent with proper issue ; Taracena, p. 104 ; Ortiz Rubio, p. 177 ; Marquez
Montiel, p. 222.

OROZCO 103

huahua. 21 There Orozco managed to maintain his forces in
relative safety from attack, and he accumulated a store of
arms and ammunition which filtered down from Madero's
agents in the United States. 22

The success of the revolution was seriously in doubt
during the waning weeks of 1910 and January 1911. Most of
the initial victories by the rebels had been dissipated, and
federal authorities were confident that the pocket of resist-
ance in Chihuahua would soon collapse. The small rebel
successes which had been accomplished were of Orozco's
doing. His greatest achievement was that he maintained an
"army" at all. Madero, in whose name he fought, was still in
the United States and could see little cause for entering Mex-
ico as provisional president and symbol of a revolution that
barely existed. The future success of the revolt was in the
hands of the ex-storekeeper and freighter, Pascual Orozco,
who was optimistic and preparing for new assaults on the
Diaz dictatorship.

By early January, 1911, Orozco was recognized by most
observers as the military commander of the revolutionary
forces in the state of Chihuahua, and the revolution was being
given a chance in some quarters. 23 In mid-January, Orozco
had sufficient supplies and circulated rumors that he was
ready to attack Chihuahua City. This was a feint, and rebel
forces moved toward Ciudad Juarez. 24

The first rebel attempt to take a major border point,
always a key part of their strategy, was under way. After
several skirmishes with federal troops in the mountains of
northwestern Chihuahua, Orozco decided to split his forces,
sending one column along the Mexican Northwestern Rail-
road, the other, under his command, along the Mexican Cen-
tral Railroad. 25 By February 3, Orozco felt that he had suffi-
cient control of the approaches to Ciudad Juarez and informed

21. Herald, Jan. 8, 1911 ; El Correo de la, Tarde, Mazatlan, Sinaloa, Mexico, Jan. 10,
1911 ; Taracena, p. 109.

22. Abraham Gonzales, leader of the anti-reelection party in Chihuahua and staunch
Maderista^ was perhaps the most active of the agents that supplied arms and supplies
to the rebels in Chihuahua.

23. Herald, Jan. 5, 1911.

24. Ibid., Jan. 25, 1911 ; Independent, LXX, 222 (Feb. 2, 1911).

25. Casasola, I, 226 ; Independent, LXX, 222 (Feb. 2, 1911).

104 NEW MEXICO HISTORICAL REVIEW

the mayor and the foreign consuls that he would begin a bom-
bardment that afternoon. 26 Failure of expected reinforce-
ments caused him to hold off, and on February 5, Colonel
Rabago and some three hundred men fought their way
through rebel lines and reinforced the federal garrison. This
addition to federal strength discouraged Orozco, the more so
when he heard that additional federal troops were being
rushed from Chihuahua City. He gave up the attack and re-
treated south, down the Mexican Central Railroad. 27 On Feb-
ruary 14, General Navarro with 1,500 troops entered Ciudad
Juarez. 28 The first substantial effort of rebel forces to take a
port of entry had failed, but there was no doubt that a dis-
ciplined rebel army was operating in Chihuahua.

The withdrawal of Orozco from Ciudad Juarez placed
Madero in an awkward position. It was evident that Orozco
had assembled an army capable of concerted military action.
There were those among Madero's advisers who felt he should
be with the troops in Mexico so he could assume true leader-
ship in fact as well as in name. There were others who thought
it would be dangerous to the revolution for Madero to enter
Mexico until there was more positive evidence of success. The
former position won out and on receipt of the news of Oroz-
co's withdrawal from Ciudad Juarez, Madero apologized to
Orozco and his men for his absence. 29 On February 13, Madero
entered Mexico at Zaragoza, fifteen miles southeast of Ciudad
Juarez. 30 Orozco and his forces returned to their mountain
strongholds west of Chihuahua City where they were joined
by Madero in the latter part of February. 31

The meeting of Madero and Orozco brought together for
the first time the symbolic leader of the revolution and the
active military commander. It was hardly a case of mutual
admiration. Madero had no knowledge of or appreciation for
the capabilities of Orozco, and he brought with him a com-

26. London Times, Feb. 4. 1911 ; El Correo, Feb. 6, 1911.

27. El Correo, Feb. 7 and Feb. 14, 1911 ; Herald, Feb. 9, 1911 ; Casasola, I, 229.

28. Independent, LXX, 281, 330, 880 (Feb. 9, 16, 23, 1911) ; London Times, Feb. 16,
1911.

29. Charles Cumberland, The Mexican Revolution: Genesis Under Madero (Austin,
Texas, 1954), p. 129.

30. Casasola, I, 230.

81. El Correo, Feb. 14, 1911 ; Independent, LXX, 431 (March 2, 1911).

OROZCO 105

plete military staff. It must have been difficult for the two
men to understand one another due to their different back-
grounds. Orozco was low born, almost illiterate, crude, and
capable of extreme brutality, while Madero was a wealthy
aristocrat, well educated, a mystic, and basically gentle. The
problem at hand, the defeat of federal forces, became their
only common ground.

Madero's failure to recognize Orozco's abilities as a leader
resulted in a temporary split between the two men. Orozco,
resentful of outside competition for command of rebel forces
in Chihuahua, had no place for and no desire to use the men
who Madero offered.

In late February, Madero, acting on advice of his advisers
rather than on Orozco's, determined to attack Casas Grandes,
a federal strongpoint on the Mexican Northwestern Railroad.
Orozco was left out of this action and remained in the District
of Guerrero, though some of his men saw action at Casas
Grandes. There were notable critics of the decision to attack
Casas Grandes. Abraham Gonzales, leader of the anti-reelec-
tion party in Chihuahua, and active in securing arms in the
United States, and Francisco Villa, felt that more would be
accomplished by capturing a border point, preferably Ciudad
Juarez or Ojinaga. Casas Grandes, even if taken, could serve
no useful purpose. 32 Madero was firm, however, and the at-
tack on Casas Grandes began March 5. What followed was
the most decisive defeat and slaughter suffered by the rebels
during the revolution. 33

Madero, realizing after the disaster at Casas Grandes that
his best chance for success was with Orozco and his men, re-
turned to the south and joined Orozco at Bustillos. 34 For a
time the two cooperated, and put into operation a plan to
take a border point. Slowly rebel forces moved north toward
Ciudad Juarez and Ojinaga. By early April they succeeded
in gaining control of the Mexican Central and the Northwest-

82. The Mexican Ambassador to the Department of Justice, Mexican Embassy,
Washington, Mar. 17, 1911, with an enclosure of a letter by Abraham Gonzales, in
Foreign Relations, 1911, 427-428 ; the Villa position was stated in Edgcumb Pinchon,
Viva. Villa, (New York, 1933), p. 148.

88. Alvin R. Kenner, "The Mexican Revolution," Mining and Scientific Press, CII,
621-624 (May 6, 1911) ; Casasola, I, 231 ; Independent, LXX, 539 (March 6, 1911).

84. Casasola, I, 256.

106 NEW MEXICO HISTORICAL REVIEW

ern railroads, thereby cutting off Ciudad Juarez. 33 On April
19, Madero demanded the surrender of the city. 36

From April 19 to May 7 a truce prevailed while peace
talks were carried on. The talks failed, for rebel leaders re-
fused to lay down their arms until Diaz resigned from the
presidency. The work of the peace commission broke down
and the talks ended May 7.

During the course of the truce, the military situation grew
tense. Orozco and Villa, restless at the delays, wanted to at-
tack while they still held a military advantage. Friction had
also developed between rebel and federal soldiers who, under
the strain of the long period of inaction, were constantly
harassing one another with insults. 37 The two chieftains and
their men were only held in check by the persuasive abilities
of Madero.

Even with the collapse of negotiations on May 7, Madero
was fearful of pushing the attack on Ciudad Juarez. Interna-
tional complications were almost certain to arise out of a
military action so close to the American border. In a state-
ment issued May 7, Madero indicated that rebel forces would
be withdrawn from Ciudad Juarez and moved south in a
march on Mexico City. 38

Orozco and his men were not so fearful of the nearness of
the American border. On May 8, scattered elements of the
rebel army began to advance on Ciudad Juarez, triggering
a general assault. Evidence does not indicate whether the
attack was ordered by Orozco or Villa, or was spontaneous.
Once under way there was little Madero could do but give his
approval. By the afternoon of May 10, rebel forces had occu-
pied all of the city and General Navarro surrendered the
federal garrison. 39

Friction developed between Madero and his military
leaders over the disposition of the federal commander, Juan

85. Ortiz Rubio, p. 178.

86. Herald, April 20, 1911.

87. Ibid.. May 10, 1911.

88. Edwards, consul, to Bryan, Sec. of State, Ciudad Juarez, May 7, 1911, in For-
eign Relations, 1911, 477. For the complete text of the Madero statement, see Ramfrez
Plancarte, pp. 283-234 n.

39. Casasola, I, 269-270; Herald, May 11, 1911; Independent, LXX, 1033 (May 18,
1911).

OROZCO 107

Navarro. Orozco and Villa wanted him executed immediately.
They remembered the fate of rebel prisoners at Cerro Prieto
and wanted revenge. Madero, not wishing unnecessary blood-
shed or unfavorable publicity, personally escorted Navarro
to safety across the international boundary.

On May 11, Madero named his provisional cabinet which
brought on a serious mutiny. The fact that he named Venusti-
ano Carranza Minister of War enraged Orozco who felt he
had earned the appointment. This, coupled with the escape
of Navarro and the resentment which had been present since
Madero's entry into Mexico, prompted Orozco to deal harshly
with Madero. Orozco, Villa, and a hundred men went to Ma-
dero's quarters. During the argument that followed, Orozco
was only restrained with difficulty from shooting men who
came to the defense of Madero, and for a time the Provisional
President himself was in great danger. 40 He talked Orozcc
out of the worst of his anger and the matter was patched up.
However, the deep resentment and distrust that had devel-
oped between the two men was firmly established.

The capture of Ciudad Juarez proved to be the key victory
in the revolt against Diaz and his government. It placed the
federal troops at Ojinaga and Agua Prieta in an impossible
position, forcing them to give up these border points to rebel
forces. 41 Federal power in northern Chihuahua was broken,
and the highly touted armies of Diaz began to collapse
throughout Mexico. The army Diaz had depended upon was
honeycombed with graft, its generals were senile, its rank
and file had been drawn from the prisons and slums, and it
proved of little value in most of its operations.

The first phase of the Mexican revolution was nearing its
end. On May 15, a meeting of the peace commission began
and on May 17, an armistice was agreed upon. That same day
Diaz agreed to resign by the end of the month ; he signed his
resignation on May 25, and went into exile in Europe. The
revolution had succeeded.

Orozco's contribution to the downfall of Diaz cannot be

40. Independent, LXX, 1033 (May 18, 1911) ; New York Times, Feb. 10, 1913. Here-
after cited as NYT with proper date.

41. Independent, LXX, 1033 (May 18, 1911).

108 NEW MEXICO HISTORICAL REVIEW

underestimated. It was his leadership and refusal to give up
in the face of what looked like certain failure that finally gave
unity and purpose to the rebels of Chihuahua. The combina-
tion of an idealistic and outspoken Madero, and the leader-
ship and fighting abilities of Orozco spelled success for the
revolution. To give all of the credit to Madero is to com-
pletely overlook a large segment of Mexican history of that
period. A number of men in many parts of Mexico brought
down the Diaz regime and Orozco in Chihuahua ranks among
the most important. Joaquin Marquez Montiel, S.J., Chihua-
hua historian, said about Orozco,

"This revolutionary military jefe was the first to raise in arms
against the Porfirian dictatorship and one of the principal fac-
tors in the triumph of the Maderista revolution." 42

The period from the fall of Ciudad Juarez to March, 1912,
was a time of resentment and dissatisfaction for Pascual
Orozco. The wealth and power he had anticipated as his re-
ward for service in the revolution never materialized to a de-
gree acceptable to him. His unrest was fed by anti-Madero
elements within the state of Chihuahua. The wealthy groups
who earlier would not have associated with such a peon up-
start saw in Orozco a possible tool against Madero. This ele-
ment included the Church, which hated Madero, the cientiji-
cos who had been the brains of the later Diaz period, all the
wealth and power of the Terrazas family, and the political
cunnings of Enrique Creel. 43 To succeed against Madero this
group needed a "stalking horse," someone who had demon-
strated leadership ability and could count on the support of a
broad base of the population. Orozco, as a result of his con-
nection with the revolution of 1910 was, in popular fancy, a
great hero, and the victorious ending of the revolution in the
interest of his party left him as the man of the hour in the
state. Nor was he unambitious. He passed every test and be-
came the man of the reactionary elements in Chihuahua.

During the closing months of 1911, plots against the

42. Marquez Montiel, p. 220.

43. National Archives, Letcher to Bryan, Chihuahua, Oct. 17, 1918 (812.00/9484) ;
NYT, Feb. 10, 1918.

OROZCO 109

Madero government were in evidence all over Mexico. In No-
vember, 1911, Bernardo Reyes, Emilio Vasquez Gomez, and
Emiliano Zapata plotted a revolt. The Plan of Ayala, which
supported the revolt, recognized Orozco as chief of the revo-
lution if he would accept. Article three of the Plan said : "Gen-
eral Pascual Orozco, second in command to Francisco Ma-
dero, is recognized chief of the Revolution Libertadora, and
in case that he does not accept this office, General Don Emili-
ano Zapata is recognized as chief of the revolution." 44 Fed-
eral authorities used this article plus personal correspondence
they claimed to have intercepted to implicate Orozco in the
revolt. 45 Orozco, planning his own rebellion, with hacendado
backing, publicly disassociated himself with the November
revolt. 46 The Zapata-Reyes- Vasquez Gomez movement failed
from lack of support. Reyes was arrested, Vasquez Gomez
fled to the United States and plotted further revolutionary ac-
tion, and Zapata continued his guerrilla activity in the south.
In the final months of 1911, and in January, 1912, Orozco
nominally remained loyal to the Madero government. In De-
cember, as commander of the state militia, he took the field
against rebel forces supporting Vasquez Gomez. 47 On Janu-
ary 20, 1912, Orozco was in Mexico City and conferred with
Madero. Rumors circulated at this time that Orozco was to
be sent to Morelos to put down the Zapata revolt, but these
were quickly dispelled by Madero. 48 When he returned to
Chihuahua, Orozco resigned the commission as commander
of the state militia and indicated he was retiring to private
life to work for an American mining company guarding ore
shipments. 49 Later events showed this to be a neat bit of
propaganda.

44. Francisco Naranjo, Diccionario biogrdfico revolucionario (Mexico, 1935), pp.
272-274. On June 19, 1914, a document was issued called the Ratification al plan de
Ayala in which article three of the Plan of Ayala was revised to exclude Orozco from
leadership as a result of his reactionary tendencies in 1912 and 1913. For the complete
text see Manuel Gonzales Ramirez, Planes politicos v otros documentos (Mexico, 1954),
pp. 86-89.

45. Herald, Dec. 5, 1911.

46. Ibid., Dec. 8, 1911.

47. He was in pursuit of Antonio Rojas who was later to be one of his aids. Ibid.,
Dec. 22, 1911.

48. Ibid., Jan. 20, 1912.

49. Ibid., Jan. 31, 1912.

110 NEW MEXICO HISTORICAL REVIEW

Revolutionary sentiments were again strong in February,
1912. On February 1, the federal garrison at Ciudad Juarez
mutinied and declared for Emilio Vasquez Gomez. 50 The agi-
tation of Vasquez Gomez from the United States and the
inability of Madero to pacify the country gave considerable
support to the revolt. Orozco and his backers were unpre-
pared for their move and were dismayed when the Vasquez
Gomez affair gained momentum. The hacendado group had
not yet collected the necessary arms, ammunition, or money
needed for a successful revolutionary enterprise. Orozco was
sent immediately to Ciudad Juarez and was able to quiet the
mutiny. On February 4, the mutineers were sent to Chihua-
hua City. 51 Orozco temporized by making terms with the lead-
ers of the mutiny, and troops which were moved from Ciudad
Juarez to Chihuahua City were to be an important factor a
month later when the Orozco-hacendado coalition was ready
to move.

All through February, Orozco hesitated while minor up-
risings occurred at numerous points in Chihuahua in favor
of Vasquez Gomez. On February 18, leaders of the Vasquez
Gomez movement tried to force Orozco into committing him-
self and his backers by proclaiming him General-in-Chief of
the rebel forces in Chihuahua. 52 Orozco still hesitated, and as
late as February 24, Abraham Gonzales, Governor of Chi-
huahua, declared Orozco loyal to the government. 53 By March,
however, the Vasquez Gomez rebellion had gained such head-
way that there was danger that Orozco and his supporters
would not be able to control it.

On March 3, 1912, Orozco took the final step and declared
himself against the Madero government, accepting the previ-
ously offered position as General-in-Chief of the Chihuahua
rebels. Supporters of Vasquez Gomez and Orozco, within the
state government, took over the state legislature and many of
the state offices. Francisco Villa, remaining loyal to Madero,
led federal troops against Chihuahua City in hopes of restor-
ing the state government to Madero men. Orozco, supported

50. Ibid., Feb. 2, 1912 ; Casasola. I. 422.

61. Herald, Feb. 5, 1912.

62. Ibid., Feb. 20, 1912.

63. 76id., Feb. 25, 1912.

OROZCO 111

by the mutineers from Ciudad Juarez, successfully defended
the state capital, driving Villa into the western part of the
state.

Orozco's defection brought on the customary revolution-
ary plan. The plan was issued on March 25 as the Pacto de la
Empacadora (Plan Orozquista) , 54 It was more a personal
condemnation of Madero than a plan of revolution. It made
few specific charges against the Madero government and of-
fered little in the way of a reform program.

Orozco and his backers hoped their call for revolution
would quickly gain support in other northern states. Soon
after issuance of the Plan Orozquista, Chihuahua was de-
clared seceded from the Mexican republic and an invitation
was issued to other Mexican states to unite with Chihuahua
to overthrow Madero. None responded however, and Chi-
huahua carried on the fight alone.

The Madero government found itself defenseless. In office
only a short time, it had indifferently organized the affairs
of state and was hampered by inexperienced personnel. Its
army was entirely disorganized, the old Diaz organization
had not been rehabilitated and no new levies had been made.
The most powerful military elements that remained of the
rebel forces that had overthrown Diaz were mostly in the
hands of Orozco in Chihuahua.

Orozco moved quickly to carry out his plan. He brought
together nearly five thousand men and jeeringly called upon
Madero to resign and save his country more bloodshed. 55 The
government sent against the rebels most of its available
strength, some 1,600 men. They were commanded by General
Jose Gonzales Salas who had resigned as the Minister of War
in Madero's cabinet to lead the federal army in the north. 66

A critical battle for control of Chihuahua developed early
in March around Torreon, an important rail center, where
Salas had concentrated his troops. 57 Rebel forces, moving
south from Chihuahua City along the main line of the Mexi-
can Central Railroad, made contact with federal outposts on

54. Gonzales Ramirez, pp. 95-106.

55. National Archives, Letcher to Bryan, Chihuahua, Oct. 17, 1913 (812.00/9484).

56. Ibid.

57. Herald, Mar. 9, 1912.

112 NEW MEXICO HISTORICAL REVIEW

March 23, 1912, at Rellano, about one hundred miles north-
west of Torreon. 58 On subsequent days the rebels advanced
south to Escalon and Corralitos. By March 27, the rebels were
completely victorious. 59 This series of victories plus success-
ful operations in the northern part of the state gave Orozco
control of Chihuahua. 60

Although the revolution looked as though it would cer-
tainly succeed, the rebels were not to have it so easy. The
federal army had been defeated and scattered, and the road
to Mexico City was open and undefended. Panic gripped the
capital at the prospect of a rebel advance. A decision made in
Washington, D. C., however, was to spell disaster for the rebel
cause. On March 13, 1912, the United States government
placed an embargo on all arms shipments to Mexico. 61 This
cut off the rebel source of arms and ammunition and made it
difficult, if not impossible, for Orozco to quickly re-supply his
army. Orozco defended his failure to follow up his victory on
the basis of an arms shortage. The United States arms em-
bargo brought on bitter denunciation by the rebels. Indeed,
the Orozco rebellion was characterized throughout by great
hostility towards the United States and towards its citizens
who resided within territory held by the rebels. 62

In early April, Madero prepared a second army to send
against Orozco. The command of operations in the north was
given to Victoriano Huerta who was given a free hand in or-
ganizing the force and assembled an army of about 8,000
men. These began to move north to Torreon on April 10. 63 A
month later Huerta was ready to begin operations against
Orozco's forces.

Early in May a major split appeared among the leaders
of the rebellion. Emilio Vasquez Gomez entered Mexico at
Ciudad Juarez on May 3, and on the following day declared
himself Provisional President and leader of the revolution. 64
Orozco refused to recognize the provisional government es-

58. Ibid., Mar. 24, 1912.

59. Ibid., Mar. 28, 1912.

60. In the north, Ciudad Juarez fell to the rebels on Feb. 24. Ibid., Feb. 27, 1912.

61. Ibid., Mar. 14, 1912.

62. National Archives, Letcher to Bryan, Chihuahua, Oct. 17, 1913 (812.00/9484).

63. Ibid.; Herald, April 11, 1912 ; Casasola, I, 443.

64. Herald, May 5, 1912.

OROZCO 113

tablished and went so far as to have Vasquez Gomez arrested
and later expelled from Mexico. 65 Orozco and his backers
were now in complete control, but they were to find that the
treatment of Vasquez Gomez and the very apparent reaction-
ary course of the revolution would soon alienate all but the
staunchest of Orozco's followers.

In the meantime, Huerta launched a series of attacks that
gradually forced the rebels north and would eventually de-
stroy them as an effective army. Orozco was still short of sup-
plies and his forces faced a numerically superior foe. Also,
his break with Vasquez Gomez had lowered the morale of
many of his followers who had earlier supported the deposed
presidential aspirant. On May 10, 1912, fighting broke out at
Conejos, about forty miles northwest of Torreon on the Mex-
ican Central Railroad, which resulted in a victory for
Huerta. 66 Federal troops continued to advance along the rail-
road and on May 22 and 23 fought a pitched battle at Rellano
and again defeated the rebels. 67 From Rellano, Orozco re-
treated north to Bachimba, destroying the railroad as he
went. It took Huerta's work crews and army until July 3 to
repair the rails and to move into position for an assault on
Orozco's defenses. The battle of Bachimba was fought on
July 3 ; and on July 4, Orozco's forces were in full retreat
toward Chihuahua City. The revolutionary forces were dis-
banded as an organized army on July 7, when Huerta reached
Chihuahua City.

When he disbanded his army Orozco gave orders for gue-
rrilla warfare. 68 He admitted defeat but was determined to
continue fighting. On July 12, he delivered a final diatribe
against Madero through the newspapers. It was a weak ef-
fort to gain sympathy and support, and it failed. 69

Huerta established his headquarters at Chihuahua City
but made little effort to stop the guerrilla bands that ravaged
the country. Orozco made his headquarters at Ciudad Juarez.
There is some evidence that the federal armies in the north

65. Ibid., May 8, 1912.

66. Ibid., May 11, 1912.

67. Ibid.. May 24, 1912.

68. National Archives, Letcher to Bryan, Chihuahua, Oct. 17, 1913 (812.00/9484).

69. Herald, July 13, 1912.

114 NEW MEXICO HISTORICAL REVIEW

were not wholly unsympathetic to the rebel cause, and that
Orozco and Huerta were in touch and knew of each other's
plans. It is not surprising that Huerta, allied by almost life
long association and community of interest with Diaz, should
be a foe of the new regime in Mexico City. There was much
talk in Chihuahua among the army people that General
Huerta was planning to turn against Madero. Whether or
not it was true that he was plotting such a revolt at this time,
it was true that he was inactive in suppressing completely the
Orozco rebellion, though all means possible had been placed
at his command. His facilities even included two airplanes
along with trained pilots and mechanics. The planes were
never taken from their hangars. 70

Orozco retained control of Ciudad Juarez without serious
interference from Huerta and continued his fight against
Madero. The biggest threat he was able to bring against the
Madero government was the persecution of foreigners and
their property. He issued orders that all foreigners must give
up their arms or join his revolution, and he withdrew all
guarantees for the protection of foreign interests. 71 These
moves had little effect, for Orozco's power had waned and he
controlled only a small territory. On August 16, 1912, Orozco
abandoned Ciudad Juarez. 72

The series of military defeats between May 10, 1912, and
the abandonment of Ciudad Juarez caused major dissension
in the ranks of Orozco's followers and dissatisfaction on the
part of his backers. On July 10, there was a movement to
depose Orozco as revolutionary leader in favor of Vasquez
Gomez and David de la Fuente. 73 De la Fuente was to take
over as military commander and Vasquez Gomez as political
leader. 74 On July 17, Antonio Rojas demanded that Orozco
give up the funds he had accumulated during the revolution
and also relinquish leadership of the movement. 75 The

70. National Archives, Letcher to Bryan, Chihuahua, Oct. 17, 1913 (812.00/9484) ;
for a short history of early aviation in Mexico see Dorote Negrete, Cronologio areontM-
tica de Mexico (n.p., 192-) , passim.

71. Herald, July 30, 1912.

72. Ibid., Aug. 17, 1917 ; Casasola, I. 466.

73. National Archives, Memorandum, unaddressed, unsigned, July 8, 1912 (812.00/
7956).

74. Herald, July 11 and 12, 1912.

75. Ibid., July 18, 1912.

OROZCO 115

Church, the cientificos, and many of the hacendados of Chi-
huahua had abandoned Orozco in July when it was obvious
that Huerta was going to defeat him. By late July much of
his army had deserted and leadership of the main revolution-
ary forces in Chihuahua passed into other hands. 76

Orozco's activities during the last half of 1912 were con-
fined to small guerrilla raids and spiteful reprisals against
foreigners, particularly United States nationals. On Septem-
ber 13, 1912, he captured Ojinaga which remained his head-
quarters until January, 1913. 77 Here again the position of
the federal armies in Chihuahua was shown. Orozco, during
these last months of 1912, had only about 800 poorly armed,
untrained men, and these were fast dwindling, yet he was
able to hold Ojinaga and to pillage northern Chihuahua with
little interference from federal troops. 78 In January, 1913,
his army all but gone, Orozco gave up his fight and entered
the United States. He was apparently aware, however, that a
bigger revolution was near at hand.

On January 25, 1913, Orozco, in exile in the United States,
published a formal statement again calling for the resigna-
tion of Madero. The statement also suggested a provisional
government: President, Jeronimo Trevifio; Foreign Minis-
ter, Francisco de la Barra ; Treasury, Toribio Esquivel Obre-
gon ; Communications, Felix Diaz ; Public Instruction, Fran-
cisco Vasquez Gomez. The statement closed "Pascual Orozco
declines any benefit." 79 This was the final gesture of Orozco's
revolution against Madero. In February the Reyes-Felix Diaz
revolt took precedence, and on February 15, Orozco declared
himself for that group. 80

Orozco's rebellion in Chihuahua, though unsuccessful, did
much to bring down the Madero government. To accomplish
stability and consolidate his government, Madero needed
peace and money. In July, 1911, the Mexican Treasury had a
surplus of 63,000,000 pesos. 81 A large portion of this disap-
peared to support federal forces in Chihuahua. Disturbances

76. Ibid., July 25, 1912.

77. Ibid., Sept. 4, 1912.

78. National Archives, Letcher to Bryan, Chihuahua, Oct. 17, 1913 (812.00/9484).

79. Herald, Jan. 28, 1913 ; NYT, Feb. 10, 1913.

80. Herald, Feb. 16, 1913.

81. Ibid., July 8, 1911.

116 NEW MEXICO HISTORICAL REVIEW

in all parts of Mexico told heavily on the central government,
but Chihuahua became the focus of effort. Lack of funds made
it impossible for Madero to put into effect the demands for
reform, and dissatisfaction with his inability to deal with
rebellion cost him support and made him vulnerable to the
machinations of Huerta, Reyes and Felix Diaz. Although
Orozco had no personal part in the coup d'etat which brought
Huerta to power, it can be said that Huerta inherited Orozco's
revolution and did in another way what Orozco could not ac-
complish on his own. The same elements that had supported
Orozco in 1912 backed Huerta.

The ascendancy of Huerta brought Orozco scurrying back
to Mexico. He was met by Huerta and, after the customary
abrazos, Huerta appointed Orozco as a brigadier-general in
the Mexican army for his service to his country in trying to
overthrow Madero. 82 Huerta, following his "election," issued
an invitation to all the state leaders to support his govern-
ment. In the north the invitation was rejected by most men
when it became known that Carranza intended to oppose
Huerta. Orozco was among the few who accepted. The Ca-
rranza forces revolted.

Orozco became the workhorse among Huerta's generals in
northern Mexico. From July, 1913, until the fall of Huerta a
year later, Orozco was the most persistent in fighting the
rebel advance. Though a federal commander, his troops were
usually irregulars, made up of his personal followers who had
remained loyal to him since 1910. Federal strongholds were
at Chihuahua City, Ciudad Juarez, Ojinaga and Torre6n.
The rebel army was concentrated in southern Chihuahua and
was commanded by Orozco's one time aide, Francisco Villa.
Until October, 1913, neither force was able to gain any real
advantage.

Late in 1913, Villa began operations to clear Chihuahua
of federal troops. In October he broke federal power at
Torredn which severed the last connection between the Mex-
ican capital and the federal forces in Chihuahua. Villa's next
objective became Chihuahua City, but Orozco and his irregu-

82. National Archives, Letcher to Bryan, Chihuahua, Oct. 17, 1913 (812.00/9484) ;
Casasola, II, 527.

OROZCO 117

lars proved the balance of power and Villa was repulsed by
the federal troops. Rather than return south, Villa by-passed
Chihuahua City and on November 15 succeeded in taking
Ciudad Juarez. Villa began an advance south November 24,
capturing Tierra Blanca. Orozco moved out of Chihuahua
City to halt the rebel advance, but was driven back. 83 With the
rebels controlling the railroads both north and south, federal
forces abandoned Chihuahua City on December 3. 84 Orozco's
forces and those from Chihuahua City retreated to Ojinaga. 85
Villa closely pursued the federals to Ojinaga, and on January
10, 1914, drove them into the United States. Most of the offi-
cers and men were interned, but Orozco escaped and soon
organized another command to fight the rebels in northern
Mexico. 86

During the first six months of 1914 Orozco's activities
were difficult to trace, for he was constantly on the move.
Being thoroughly familiar with the border, he slipped in and
out of Mexico at will. He is known to have lived for months
within a short distance of El Paso, Texas. In May he showed
up briefly in Los Angeles where he tried to recruit men and
supplies for the Huerta cause. He fled Los Angeles when a
warrant was issued for his arrest on a charge of violating
United States neutrality laws. 87 In June Orozco was back in
Mexico in command of 4,000 irregulars ; his orders were to
support the federal garrison at Zacatecas. The Carranza
rebels soundly defeated the federal garrison. Orozco, not
wanting to risk his small force in the fight, retreated to Sole-
dad where the rebel cavalry caught up with and surrounded
him. 88 He escaped their trap and in late June joined other
Huerta leaders at San Luis Potosi where they declared them-
selves separated from the control of the regular army but at
the same time pledged that they would continue to fight the
Constitutional Army led by Carranza. 89

83. NYT, Nov. 30, 1913.

84. Casasola, II, 654 ; Juan Barragan Rodriguez, Historic, del ejtrcito y dc la. revo-
lucion constitucionalista (Mexico, 1946), 2 vols., II, 654.

85. NYT, Dec. 10, 1913.

86. Ibid,, Sept. 1, 1915 ; Barragan, p. 282.

87. NYT, May 13, 1914.

88. Ibid., June 27, 1914.

89. Ibid., June 29, 1914.

118 NEW MEXICO HISTORICAL REVIEW

By July it was evident the Huerta regime was fast com-
ing to an end. Rebel forces under Carranza were closing on
Mexico City, Villa had all but complete control in the north.
On July 15, 1914, Huerta gave up and left the country, going
to Spain.

Orozco, without waiting for a Carranza government to
come into full control, started a counter-revolution. His chief
aide was Francisco Cardenas, the officer who had commanded
the guard that had custody of Madero when he was mur-
dered. 90 The counter-revolution was never to be a serious
threat to either Villa or Carranza, who themselves split in
1914 and were fighting each other. Orozco's activities were
confined to minor clashes with Villa forces in northern Mex-
ico. He moved freely across the border and was wanted by
Villa in Mexico and authorities in the United States. In De-
cember, Orozco appeared for a short time in New York City,
seeking arms and financial aid for his fight against Carranza
and Villa. 91

While Orozco was carrying on his lone fight, Huerta had
returned from exile in Spain and was in the United States
plotting his return to power. He and Orozco joined forces and
on June 27, 1915, met at Newman, New Mexico, near El Paso.
They were immediately arrested by American immigration
officers for violation of United States neutrality laws. Appar-
ently Orozco and Huerta planned to cross the border where
loyal forces were waiting to revolt. It was also reported that
a substantial quantity of arms was waiting for the rebels in
a warehouse in El Paso. 92

This was not to be the end of Orozco's activities, but it
was the finish of Huerta. On July 2, Orozco jumped his bail
of $7,500 and entered Mexico. Huerta was arrested before
he could do likewise and was held in an El Paso jail. 93 A short
time later Huerta was killed by another prisoner while still
in jail.

During the remainder of July and in August, 1915, Orozco
and a few loyal followers operated along the border trying to

90. Ibid., July 19, 1914.

91. Ibid., Dec. 15, 1914.

92. Ibid., June 28, 1916.

93. Ibid., July 3 and 13, 1915.

OROZCO 119

gather an army, but with little success. To support them-
selves they raided ranches on both sides of the border. On
August 31, Orozco raided the Dick Love Ranch in the Big
Bend district of Texas. A posse of civilians, United States
customs officials, and members of the 13th United States Cav-
alry were close at hand and took his trail. In the Green River
Canyon of the High Lonesome Mountains near Hillsburg,
Texas, Pascual Orozco and four of his companions were killed
in a running fight. 94 Orozco had fallen a long way since his
triumphant entry into Chihuahua City as general of the revo-
lutionary army that had beaten Diaz in 1911.

Orozco was an opportunist ; the satisfaction of his ambi-
tions for wealth and prestige determined his loyalties. He
thrived on the brutality, lawlessness, and coarseness of gue-
rrilla fighting. For all his shortcomings his appeal to the peo-
ple of Chihuahua was remarkable. Even in defeat, disgraced
in the eyes of most Mexicans, and declared a bandit by two na-
tions, Orozco was still able to raise an army in Chihuahua
with relative ease. In the annals of Chihuahua history he re-
mains a hero to this day, particularly for his part in the over-
throw of Diaz.

His services to the revolution in 1910-1911, when the Diaz
forces were defeated, were second only to those of Madero,
and perhaps in some respects he takes precedence over the
"Apostle of the Revolution." The remaining years of his life
are not so deserving of praise. After the fall of Diaz, Orozco's
name and abilities became permanently associated with all
the elements in Mexico that stood for the old tyranny and
the old ways of doing things. Until the day he died he kept the
northern states, and particularly Chihuahua, in a state of
turmoil. Forces that were eventually welded to crush him and
others like him were also strong enough to bring a degree of
stability and sanity to the Mexican nation. The leaders of this
new force emerged the victors over the more reactionary and
anti-revolution elements.

In all parts of Mexico in 1910 men like Pascual Orozco
burst suddenly upon the Mexican scene. The chance for lead-

94. National Archives, Weekly Report, Headquarters, Southern Department, Fort
Sam Houston, Texas, Dept. 3, 1915 ; NYT, Sept. 1, 1915.

120 NEW MEXICO HISTORICAL REVIEW

ership, recognition, and even wealth was there for the strong
to take. It was a period of particular brutality and inhuman-
ity. To survive the rigors of leadership a man had to be cast
in the pattern of an Orozco or a Villa or a Zapata. It was not
until the Mexican nation was exhausted and prostrate that
any semblance of order or of law developed.

Until the many state and local leaders who participated
in the great rebellion, from 1910 to 1917, are sorted out and
analyzed, our knowledge of the Mexican movement will be
inadequate and faulty. The Mexican Constitution of 1917,
which has had such an important impact upon the constitu-
tional development of all of the Latin American countries,
was a direct outgrowth of the Diaz dictatorship and the cha-
otic six years that followed his fall. The developing revolu-
tion with all of its ramifications also grew out of the anarchy
and bloodshed that swept Mexico from 1910 to 1917. It is
essential that the basic elements that went into the making
of Mexican history during these six or seven years be under-
stood. The activities of Pascual Orozco, Jr., and his Chihua-
hua rebels were but one link in that chain of events.

[NEW MEXICO HISTORICAL REVIEW, VoL 36, No. 2. April. 1961]

BRITISH INVESTMENT AND THE AMERICAN
MINING FRONTIER, 1860-1914

By CLARK C. SPENCE*

* * T7 NGLAND is a lake of money, bank full and running over."
JLj So wrote the San Francisco editor of the Mining and
Scientific Press in 1895. 1 Many fellow Americans were in-
clined to agree and undoubtedly the relatively heavy invest-
ments of British capital that had already splashed over into
the West had much to do with creating this attitude. Although
the pound sterling was attracted to many types of enterprises
vineyards, railroads, and ranching among others be-
tween 1860 and 1914 at least 584 joint-stock companies, with
a total nominal capitalization of not less than 81,185,000,
were registered with the Board of Trade in Great Britain to
engage in mining or milling activities in the intermountan
West and Southwest, exclusive of the Pacific Coast proper.
Of these, probably not more than 329, capitalized at about
46,000,000, ever raised funds and actually commenced oper-
ations. Of the total, at least 79, representing nominal capital
of 10,997,200, were formed to work property in Arizona and
New Mexico, although about 20 per cent of this number never
became operational, even for a limited period of time. 2

Such figures must be approached gingerly. Often the gap
between nominal and actual capital was a wide one. The
British public might fail to respond, with the result that
part of the nominal capital remained unsubscribed; large
blocks of shares might be granted fully paid to vendors in
full or partial payment for property ; sometimes non-British
shareholders American or Continental accounted for a

* Associate Professor of History, The Pennsylvania State University, University
Park, Penn.

1. Mining and Scientific Press, LXXI (Sept. 21, 1895), 185.

2. These and other figures concerning the organization and operation of these
584 joint-stock companies have been compiled by the writer primarily from official files
located in the offices of the Registrar of Companies, Board of Trade, Bush House,
London, and the Queen's Remembrancer, Parliament Square, Edinburgh. In addition,
much pertinent material has been used from collections in the archives of the Stock
Exchange, Share and Loan Department, London.

121

122 NEW MEXICO HISTORICAL REVIEW

proportion of the subscribed capital. 3 Certainly the heavy
expenses of floating a joint-stock company in London or Edin-
burgh might absorb a sizable amount of the original assets.
In one extreme instance, for example, approximately 120,-
000 ($600,000) was spent in organizing and sustaining a sin-
gle Anglo-Utah concern during its early months of activity. 4
On the other hand, these general figures and, indeed,
this paper are concerned with only part of the story of Brit-
ish investment in western mines. Undoubtedly much capital
cannot be pinpointed. Until late in the century English rec-
ords gave no indication of additional capital raised through
mortgage indebtedness. Thus, while in mid-1888 the Arizona
Copper Company, Ltd., listed a nominal capital of only 715,-
000, it had issued 266,000 worth of unrecorded debentures
through a kindred firm in order to meet its obligations and
to conduct operations. 5 The picture is further complicated by
indeterminable amounts invested through unincorporated
partnerships or friendly societies and, more importantly,
through American companies. Of the latter, like the Seven
Stars Gold Mining Company or the White Hills Mining and
Milling Company (both in Arizona) , 6 there were many. They
hawked their shares or bonds on the British market and
sometimes worked extensively in the West, but few have left
behind them records to indicate how many shares were held

8. For examples of Southwestern companies illustrating this discrepancy between
nominal and actual capital see : Jersey Lily Gold Mines, Ltd., Summary or Capital and
Shares to February 14, 1899, located in the Board of Trade flies, office of the Registrar
of Companies, Bush House London. File No. 45507. (Such files are cited hereafter as
C.R.O. and number. Numbers preceded by the letter "B" are on microfilm at the Ban-
croft Library.) ; Grand Central Silver Mines, Ltd., Summary of Capital and Shares to
February 10, 1892, C.R.O. B34882 ; Little Wonder Gold Mines, Ltd., Prospectus (April
12, 1901), C.R.O. B69138. The roster of the Morenci Copper Mines, Ltd., an Anglo-
Arizona undertaking of 1899, shows shares held not only in England, but also in France,
Germany, Holland, Italy, Switzerland, Portugal, Corsica, and Turkey. Morenci Copper
Mines, Ltd., Summary of Capital and Shares to January 11, 1901, C.R.O. 62248.

4. Trenor W."*Park testimony (April 19, 1876), Emma Mine Investigation, House
Report No. 579, 44th Congress, 1st Session (1875-1876), 758.

5. The Statist, XXII (Sept. 22, 1888), 386; Arizona Copper Company, Ltd., Pros-
pectus (1888). This was a prospectus advertising the issuance of the 266,000 perpetual
debentures six years after the organization of the concern. Unless otherwise noted, all
company prospectuses cited are located in the Stock Exchange archives, London.

6. For the White Hills Mining and Milling Company, which had heavy Manchester
backing, see the Anglo-Colorado Mining and Milling Guide (London), I (June 25, 1898),
67 ; Mohave County Miner, Feb. 11, 1921. The Seven Stars Gold Mining Company and its
activities during the 1890's is amply covered in Wiser, et al., v. Lawler, ct al., 189 U.S.
Reports (1902), 261-274.

BRITISH MINING 123

in English hands. In any event, because of the imponderables,
any attempt at quantitative analysis falls far short of its
mark.

But whatever its extent and through whatever its media,
the flow of investment into western mines was but part of a
much broader movement of British capital into all corners of
the mineral world, ranging from Aruba to the Yukon, from
Coolgardie to Zanzibar. The American West was not pe-
culiarly favored; competing with other regions it received
only a fraction of British overseas capital. In 1890 only 17.1
per cent of all new capital offered by mining concerns regis-
tered in England was destined for any part of the United
States ; probably about 3.5 per cent of similar capital offered
in 1900 was earmarked specifically for the American West. 7
And British investments made up only a small portion of the
total capital that developed western mineral industries. Frag-
mentary figures show that in 1895, for example, British joint-
stock capital represented about 1.5 per cent of all new capital
nominally registered for Colorado mines in that year. 8

After a brief and unhappy experience in California dur-
ing the 1850's, English investments were not especially no-
ticeable in western mines until after 1870. The confusion and
uncertainty fostered by the Civil War acted as a deterrent,
as did the condition of the mineral industry itself. Depression
struck in the mid-sixties, as Eastern companies succumbed
to "process mania" and installed fantastic new contraptions
for "frying, roasting or stewing precious ores" which had
been devised by so-called "experts" who knew "as little about
practical milling as the lunatic in Swift did about extracting
sunbeams from cucumbers." 9 The resulting costly and spec-
tacular failures by many American firms could not help but

7. Walter R. Skinner (ed.), The Mining Manual (London, 1891-1892), xi ; Mining
Journal (London), Jan. 19, 1901, 71.

8. According to the British Vice-Consul in Denver, there were 632 mining com-
panies registered and incorporated in Colorado in 1895 with a total capital of nearly
108,000,000 on paper. United States Report for the Year 1895 on the Trade of the
Consular District of Chicago, Foreign Office, Annual Series No. 1725 (1896), 30-31. The
writer unearthed twelve British joint-stock companies with a total nominal capital of
1,349,000 registered to exploit mineral resources in Colorado in 1895.

9. Amasa McCoy, Mines and Mining in Colorado: a Conversational Lecture, Deliv-
ered in the Lecture Room of Crosby's Opera House, to the International Mining and
Exchange Company (Chicago, 1871), 35.

124 NEW MEXICO HISTORICAL REVIEW

leave the British public cool to western investment schemes.

Moreover, British capital had a tendency to lag until some
semblance of "civilization" became apparent in the West. It
tended to move more readily, for example, into regions where
the Indians provided the least trouble and where railroads
were early available. Thus Nevada, Colorado, and Utah were
favored with overseas capital at an earlier date than Idaho,
Montana, New Mexico, and Arizona. From 1860 to 1873 there
were thirty-three British concerns organized to operate
mines in Nevada, twenty-two for Colorado, but only three
for Arizona and none for New Mexico.

In general the decade of the sixties brought only limited
British investment (actually sixteen companies, with a total
capitalization of 1,525,000) , but the stage was being set for
a more substantial flow. English company laws had by 1862
simplified the organization of the joint-stock company and
had added limited liability to its advantage. At the same time,
a generally prosperous investing public was being brought in
contact with western opportunities. Innumerable British
travelers bent on sport or adventure carried home tales of
mineral riches in the Rockies or beyond ; thousands of Brit-
ish emigrants in the West retained family or business ties
abroad ; English or Cornish experts sent to inspect or manage
American mines undoubtedly served as important links. Se-
lected ores shipped to international exhibitions or to Swansea
or Liverpool to take advantage of superior refining methods
gave mute if misleading testimony of western wealth. 10 And
all the while, by newspaper and periodical, by pamphlet,
broadside, and prospectus, promoters constantly kept "op-
portunity" before the British public. 11

In the early 1870's came a speculative flurry which fo-
cused attention sharply on Colorado, Nevada, and Utah. In
spite of momentary scares emanating from the confusion of

10. Mining Journal, March 12, 1864; Colorado Miner (Georgetown), Dec. 14, 1871.

11. A typical promotional pamphlet is Lincoln Vanderbilt's The New and Wonder-
ful Explorations of Professor Lincoln Vanderbilt, the Great American Traveller, in the
Territories of Colorado, Arizona, & Utah, and the States of California, Nevada, & Texas,
Adapted for the Emigrants, Settlers, Mine Speculators, Fortune Hunters, and Travellers
(London, 1870). As for Arizona, wrote Vanderbilt, "Nowhere in the world is there
such a rich section of country for mining, and favourable facilities for working these
wonderfully productive mines, as embraced in an area of 40 miles square, lying east and
south of the town of Prescott." (pp. 32-33)

BRITISH MINING 125

the Franco-Prussian War and the Alabama claims question, 12
the year 1871 produced a bumper crop of Anglo-American
mining companies a total of thirty-four, capitalized nom-
inally at 4,550,000, of which twenty, with a capital of
3,211,000, actually operated. The boom leveled out in 1872
and 1873, then fell off sharply as the cold wind of depression
swept across the West, chilling the ardor of the investor and
leaving in its wake a mass of corporate wreckage. 13 At pre-
cisely the same time English faith was being severely shaken
by exposures relating to the Emma Silver Mining Company,
Ltd., a concern whose name to the average Englishman be-
came synonymous with Yankee skulduggery. Partly because
of promotional support given by the American minister in
London, British investors had succumbed to the wiles of the
seductive Emma and had plunged 1,000,000 into this Utah
endeavor, only to discover too late that the property was
worked out. 14 This revelation brought not only Utah, but the
entire West into disrepute, as a combination of elements
depression and distrust brought lean years of investments.
Only fifteen new Anglo- western concerns (one of them in
Arizona) came into active existence during the seven years
from 1873 to 1880, and their total capital was only 1,546,000
about forty-eight per cent of the total for the single year
1871.

Stiff competition from the booming new Indian fields and
a mild financial crisis in 1878 did nothing to relieve the situa-
tion, but except for a sharp downward trend in 1880 and
again in 1885, the eighties brought a general increase, the
year 1886 being the best since 1871 ; 1887 and 1888 were the
two peak years of the entire period, for at least thirty com-
panies (six of them in Arizona) with a total nominal capital

12. Hiram A. Johnson to Henry M. Teller (London, Feb. 19, 1872), Teller MSS ;
William Byers to A. E. Langford (n.p., Sept. 23, 1870), Byers Letterbook (1868-1871).
Both located in the University of Colorado Libraries.

13. See, for example, report of meeting of the Utah Silver-Lead Mining Company,
Ltd., (Feb. 17, 1874), Mining World (London), Feb. 21, 1874, 374; report of meeting
of the Mammoth Copperopolis of Utah, Ltd., ibid., 376 ; report of meeting of the Clifton
Silver Mining Company, Ltd. (June 15, 1874), ibid., June 20, 1874, 138-139; Salt Lake
Daily Herald, Jan. 15 & 16, 1874.

14. Emma Mine Investigation, House Report No. 579, 44th Congress, 1st Session
(1875-1876), 875; Mining World, May 17, 1873, 950-951; Samuel T. Paffard, The True
History of the Emma Mine (London, 1873), 32, 33.

126 NEW MEXICO HISTORICAL REVIEW

of 7,582,500 were formed and commenced operations in
those two years. Concentration was primarily in Colorado,
with Nevada, Idaho, and Arizona trailing. Utah by this time
was no longer a contender.

Despite a near panic in 1890 when the Barings crashed,
the level of investment remained high until 1892 ; then a fall
in metal prices and another international financial dislocation
were to cause the flow to ebb momentarily. British concerns
throughout the West were hard hit and often never recov-
ered. A few prospered, most muddled along, many includ-
ing the wicked Emma liquidated their American interests
and reinvested in gold mines abroad. 15 But new capital was
attracted again after 1894, although the pre-depression level
was never again reached. The predicted Cripple Creek boom,
with a "Colorado sideshow" supplementing the "Kaffir cir-
cus" did not materialize in England. 16 Perhaps the Venezuela
boundary scare was in part to blame, 17 but more important
was the increased competition of South Africa, the Yukon,
and Australia-New Zealand as rivals on the world money
market. Success in these areas helped weaken the movement
of English capital to the American West, although British
investments did respond in positive fashion to the Tonopah,
Goldfield, and Rhyolite rushes in Nevada. 18 But the Panic of
1907 brought a negative reaction and on the eve of the Great
War the period ended on a note of futility, according to the
London Economist, with "gloom which hung like a pall over
the mining market" because capital was being withdrawn
from the mineral industry throughout the world in favor of
more lucrative if less risky commercial enterprises. 19

If profits are any indication, the degree of success of the
average Anglo-American mining concern fell far short of ex-

15. Skinner, Mining Manual (1896), 937; Dickens Custer Mines, Ltd., Directors?
Report, April 1, 1893, to Dec. 31, 1895 ; Annual Report, year ending June 30, 1901 ;
Flagstaff Company, Ltd., Directors' Report, Nov. 13, 1893, to June 30, 1895 ; La Plata
Mines, Ltd., Directors' Report, Oct. 27. 1892, to March 31, 1894 ; Emma Company, Ltd.,
Annual Report, year ending June 30, 1896. Unless otherwise noted, all annual reports
and directors' reports are in the London Stock Exchange archives.

16. Mining Journal, Dec. 21, 1895, 1547.

17. Ibid.; see also William Rogers to W. E. Tustin (Wolverhampton, Jan. 25, 1896),
copy in James A. Beaver MSS, Pennsylvania State University Libraries.

18. British Nevada Syndicate, Ltd., Prospectus (April 26, 1907), C.R.O. 93138;
Nevada Mining Share Syndicate, Ltd., Balance Sheet (Dec. 31, 1908), C.R.O. B85633.

19. Economist, Feb. 7, 1914, 278.

BRITISH MINING 127

pectations. At least fifty-seven of the companies registered in
the 1860-1914 era paid dividends aggregating about 11,700,-
000 prior to 1915. 20 Numerically this would mean that one
company in every ten ultimately paid some kind of dividend.
But many of these were but token payments to appease stock-
holders or to sustain share prices artificially. In a few in-
stances, officials even borrowed illicitly to pay such "divi-
dends." 21 Probably no more than ten joint-stock companies,
only one of which operated in the Southwest, 22 returned the
shareholders' full investment. No wonder investors came to
believe that the comparative declension of the word "mine"
was "miner" and the superlative "minus." 23

If dividends were not ordinarily forthcoming and if
mountainous debts of half a million pounds sometimes piled
up, 24 wherein lay the blame? It was not merely that "salted"
properties were passed off on the naive British investor, al-
though more than one company, like the Jersey Lily Gold
Mines, Ltd., in Arizona, paid dearly for mines in which ore
samples had been "grafted" where nature had not intended
them to be. 25 The over-all story is much more complex, with

20. Included were four concerns operating in Arizona or New Mexico: Arizona
Copper Company, Ltd., paid a total of 3,551,835 between 1892 and 1913; Harquahala
Gold Mining Company, Ltd., also operating in Arizona, paid 36,250 in 1893-1894;
Carlisle Gold Mining Company, Ltd. (New Mexico) paid 20,000 in 1888; and the
Lady Franklin Mining Company, Ltd. (New Mexico) returned dividends of 18,002
in 1887.

21. Thomas Skinner (ed.), The Stock Exchange Year-Book and Diary for 1875
(London, n.d.), 162 ; Paffard, The True History of the Emma Mine, 33.

22. The only British concern operating in the Southwest which returned at least
one hundred per cent on the original investment was the Arizona Copper Company, Ltd.

23. Mining Journal, Sept. 9, 1871, 800.

24. See Adelaide Star Mines, Ltd. [Nevada], Annual Report, year ending Oct. 31,
1912.

25. This company was incorporated in October, 1895, to acquire mines in the
Hassayampa district of Arizona from William Coles Bashford of Prescott. Through
Daniel Keating the concern acquired property for 100,000 in shares, but soon ex-
hausted its meager working capital. Another British firm, the Anglo-Continental Gold
Syndicate, Ltd., agreed to provide 10,000 for development and for machinery. However,
a careful re-sampling of Jersey Lily ores by experts sent out by the Anglo-Continental
Syndicate led to the conclusion that the original samples had been "salted" and that the
property would not pay. The Jersey Lily company abandoned the mines and brought
suit, apparently without success, and the venture was written off as a total loss by the
Anglo-Continental Gold Syndicate, Ltd. Jersey Lily Gold Mines, Ltd., Memorandum
and Articles of Association, 1-2; Special Resolutions (July 9 & 29, 1897), C.R.O. 45507;
Anglo-Continental Gold Syndicate, Ltd., Directors' Report and Accounts, 15 months
ending March 31, 1899; London Times, April 8, 1899; The Statist (London), April 29,
1899. Charles Siringo, well-known cowboy and mining detective, gives a thinly disguised
account of the affair, calling it the "Kansas Daisy," probably to be sure his name was

128 NEW MEXICO HISTORICAL REVIEW

a number of contributing factors combining to spell disillu-
sionment and disappointment.

The whole process of promoting mining enterprises in
England left the way open for gross misrepresentation and
the transfer of shoddy goods across the trans-Atlantic coun-
ter. Worthless claims, labeled "prospect holes" in Colorado
or Arizona, became "permanent mining investments" in Lon-
don. Disputed titles and an occasional hidden mortgage
passed into British hands. 26 Prospectuses spoke in glowing
terms of "mountains of silver" in New Mexico and of "prob-
able dividends of 200 to 300 per cent" in Nevada, 27 and in
their optimism rivaled accounts from Sinbad the Sailor, or
as unhappy investors more often insisted, from the tales of
Baron Munchausen. Extreme statements came to be expected
as a regular part of western mine promotion. "The stories
of all of them," commented one American engineer in Lon-
don, "are so flattering & so highly coloured that it is almost
impossible to interest a man in a moderate and probable state-
ment." 28 And to add distinction, each prospectus carried the
names of directors of the new company-to-be, the list includ-
ing as many eminent names as possible those of nobility,
military men, members of parliament, and other public fig-
ures whose presence might overawe the investing public. 29
Unfortunately, too many of the projects presented in this

kept out of the courts. "A Mr. B. of that enterprising town [Prescott] had put out a
bait and caught some big fish in England," writes Siringo. "When the aforesaid big fish,
who were organized as the Anglo-Continental Mining Co. began to smell a 'mice,' they
called on the Dickinson Agency to investigate and see if their corn-crib really contained
rats. Hence, I was sent to do the cat act." Eventually, according to Siringo, one of
those involved confessed privately that he and "Mr. B." had tampered with and "en-
riched" the ore samples at the time of the property's sale. Formal evidence, admissible
in court, was lacking, however, and the English were the losers. Charles A. Siringo,
A Cowboy Detective (Chicago, 1912), 268-270. For a more detailed case, in which an
English concern successfully proved fraud in court, see the Mudsill Mining Company,
Ltd. v. Watrous, et al., 61 Federal Reporter (1894), 164-190.

26. In re Crooke's Mining and Smelting Company, Ltd., reported in London Time*,
Aug. 3, 1885; W. J. Lavington to Registrar of Companies (London, May 2, 1893),
Ouray Gold Mining Company, Ltd., C.R.O. 24513.

27. Pyramid Range Silver Mountain Company, Ltd., Prospectus (Jan. 1871) ; Lander
City Silver Mining Company, Ltd., Prospectus (June, 1865).

28. James Hague to John H. Bird (London, May 10, 1871), copy, Hague MSB,
Huntington Library.

29. A typical example was the United Arizona Copper Company, Ltd., registered
in 1902. Included on the concern's board were the Earl of Oxford and Admiral Sir
William Cecil Henry Domville of Ipswich. United Arizona Copper Company, Ltd.,
Prospectus (1902).

BRITISH MINING 129

fashion could not hope to live up to promotional claims and
left the average investor with a slim purse and an attitude
which, in the words of a contemporary, "generally assays
about two tons of regret to the square inch." 30

Many joint stock enterprises collapsed from weaknesses
in capital structure. While the nominal capital of a concern
might vary between 100 at one extreme and 3,000,000 at
the other, 31 the more typical company was capitalized at from
50,000 to 500,000. Likewise, share denominations ranged
from one shilling to five hundred pounds, but the public
showed a preference for those of one pound. 32 Regardless of
that, most Anglo-western mining companies were overcapi-
talized, and despite numerous official and unofficial warnings,
they invariably purchased mines at from three to ten times
the price asked for the same property in America. 33 A Colo-
radoan was frank in addressing a prospective English pro-
moter in this regard in 1871 :

When you come here I should advise you to say nothing about
buying mines as these Yankee fellows are all anxious to sell
and the price they ask is all in proportion to the ability of the
purchaser. I could buy a mine for 5000 dollars that they would
ask you 50000 for. 34

As a result, having plunged most of their capital into the
purchase of property, most companies sorely lacked working
capital. Next to the cry of "fraud" (usually unsubstantiated)
the most common plea heard in company meetings in London
was for additional operating funds.

80. Harry J. Norton, A Bird'a-Eye View of the Black Hills Gold Mining Region
(New York, 1879), 9.

31. Turquoise Syndicate, Ltd., Memorandum of Association, 1, C.R.O. 86874 ; Harney
Peak Consolidated Tin Company, Ltd., Notice of Increase of Capital (Nov. 12, 1889),
C.R.O. B24391.

32. Mineral Assets Company, Ltd., Statement of Nominal Capital (Nov. 18, 1898),
C.R.O. 59582 ; Clifton Arizona Copper Company, Ltd., Statement of Nominal Capital
(Dec. 24, 1900), C.R.O. B67811.

33. Anglo-Colorado Mining and Milling Guide, III (Feb. 24, 1900), 21; The Statist,
Sept. 17, 1887 ; "Gold Queen," Ltd., Memorandum of Agreement between Thomas Gilbert
and the "Gold Queen," Ltd., C.R.O. B25811 ; Ms Annual Report of Consul Booker on
the Trade of California, 1871 (San Francisco, March 8, 1872), F.O. 115/540; United
States Report for the Year 1899 on the Trade of the Consular District of San Francisco,
Foreign Office, Annual Series No. 2506 (1900), 35.

84. W. West to George Heaton (Black Hawk, Colorado, March 8, 1871). Teller Mss.

130 NEW MEXICO HISTORICAL REVIEW

Another factor contributing to a lack of success was the
inability to find satisfactory solutions to problems of manage-
ment across an ocean and three-quarters of a continent.
Boards of direction selected for their appeal to the "lord-
loving public," rather than for administrative or mining ex-
perience, too often proved inept or disinterested. Most con-
cerns refused to entrust their property to unpredictable Yan-
kees and insisted instead on British engineers or mine cap-
tains. Probably the majority of such men sent from the home
islands were well-trained and competent; indeed, many of
them would have been regarded as top-flight mining experts
in any setting. Many of them brought with them ideas and
processes stemming from years of experience in mines and
smelters the world over and were to be of more than passing
importance for their contributions to the development of the
trans-Mississippi West.

But a sizable minority were neither able nor qualified for
the positions of responsibility they were sent to fill. To the
end of the era, British companies never completely discarded
the idea "that a man having been a Sunday school teacher, or
a most exemplary tradesman, or a needy relative of the presi-
dent, or one of the directors is sufficient qualification to en-
able him to manage a mine successfully." 35 Nepotism was
common ; so were misfits. One manager came to Colorado in
order to work off a debt he owed to the chairman. 36 Another
in the same region was by profession a druggist; 37 one in
Nevada, a dentist. 38 James Thomson, a well known poet and
professional pessimist, acted as a company agent in the
Rockies for the better part of a year and attended practically
every social function in Central City during his stay, but
contributed nothing to the cause of his firm. 39 On the other
hand, amateurism need not always be a liability. Edward
Probert, ordained minister and formerly chaplain to the
Duke of Northumberland, served nearly a quarter of a cen-

35. William Weston to editor, Mining Journal, May 7, 1881, 561.

36. Thomas A. Rickard, Retrospect (New York & London, 1937), 35.

37. Mining Journal, July 3, 1874, 732.

38. Ibid., Feb. 3, 1872, 95.

39. Two of Thomson's diaries one personal and one dealing with business matters
of the Champion Gold and Silver Mines of Colorado, Ltd. are in the Bodleian Library,
Oxford University.

BRITISH MINING 131

tury and served well as manager of the successful Rich-
mond Consolidated Mining Company, Ltd., in Nevada. 40

Many English shareholders agreed that the honesty of
their managers varied inversely with the distance between
the mine and the London office. Men sent out from England
came to feel "like the beggar sat on horseback," complained
one chairman, "and the consequences are most disastrous." 41
If the mines were located in Britain, there would be plenty
of honest men available, insisted another, "but somehow or
other there is something in the atmosphere of Utah so extraor-
dinary that they no sooner get there than they become ut-
terly corrupted." 42 Distance brought a certain independence,
noted a shareholder of an Anglo-Nevada firm, that "comes
over a man when he finds he has neither a soul to be saved nor
a stern to be kicked." 43

British investors could point to many examples often
taken out of context of incompetent or unrestrained mine
managers. One enthusiastically reported huge new gold finds
that turned out to be iron pyrites ; 44 another purchased a fur-
nace site five hundred miles from his company's mines, pay-
ing $26,000 for property which had shortly before been
offered to an American group for $11, 000 ; 45 a third was
charged with completely bungling his work at the mines
while expertly "smelting" all the silver out of shareholders'
pockets. 46 Others were accused of neglecting their jobs in
favor of the whiskey shop or the billiard saloon or to engage
in riding, hunting, or what has been described as "the gallant
pursuits." 47 Many were condemned for their failure to sub-
mit regular accounts and for keeping the home office unin-

40. The Statist, Dec. 3, 1887; Mining Journal, Jan. 18, 1873, 60; Richmond Con-
solidated Mining Company, Ltd., Annual Report, year ending Feb. 28, 1900.

41. Report of meeting of the Saturn Silver Mining Company of Utah, Ltd. (Jan. 12,
1874), Mining World, Jan. 17, 1874, 139.

42. Report of meeting of the Flagstaff Silver Mining Company of Utah, Ltd. (April
16, 1874), ibid., Apr. 18, 1874, 715.

43. Report of meeting of the South Aurora Silver Mining Company, Ltd. (Nov. 6,
1872), ibid., Nov. 9, 1892, 1681.

44. Report of meeting of the Saturn Silver Mining Company of Utah, Ltd. (Dec. 9,
1872), ibid., Dec. 14, 1872, 1928-1929.

45. Ibid., March 7, 1874, 470.

46. "Englishman" to editor (Feb. 17, 1874), ibid., Feb. 21, 1874, 371.

47. Ibid., Dec. 6, 1873, 1151. See also: Mining Journal, Aug. 29, 1874, 931 ; Colorado
Miner, June 25, 1887.

132 NEW MEXICO HISTORICAL REVIEW

formed for months at a stretch. At the same time, others
could be criticized for their casual misrepresentation of the
condition of the company property : success was around the
immediate corner, they almost invariably predicted. One
more small capital outlay would assuredly lead to lush
profits. 48

In attempts to solve the problem of control across dis-
tance, British firms utilized several approaches, but none
with unabridged success. They endeavored to hedge in their
managers with intricate but unenforceable regulations de-
manding strict and regular accounting of all work done and
every shilling spent. 49 They tended to pay higher salaries
in the misplaced assumption that more pay meant superior
men. They sometimes put reputable British engineering firms
in charge, but this meant extra costs. They dispatched roving
directors to keep an eye on the mines from time to time, but
the typical uninformed "guinea pig" director 50 could easily
be misled by any ordinary manager. Never, throughout the
period, did British absentee owners find a satisfactory
method of choosing and retaining competent supervisory per-
sonnel over whom real authority could quickly and readily be
exercised.

If by chance an Anglo-American concern were fortunate
enough to have acquired paying property, had sufficient capi-
tal to work it, and a trustworthy manager of ability, it might
well be sure of being dragged through legal proceedings of
some sort. With the first rays of prosperity in flocked the
vultures of the mining world, eager to pick clean its corporate
bones. A discouraged British investor and visitor to the
Rockies commented in 1879:

In the present miserable state of the mining laws in Colorado,
any English capitalist is a downright fool to buy a mine in this
district; for the moment he proves it a good one, all the

48. See : Tarryall Creek Gold Company, Ltd., Annual Report, year ending June 30,
1891; Poorman Gold Mines, Ltd., Circular to Shareholders (June 28, 1901) ; Alfred H.
Oxenford to William Read (London, July 10, 1891), Read Mas, Bancroft Library.

49. See, for example, Eberhardt and Aurora Mining Company Ltd., "Committee's
report on system of returns on working at mines," (n.d. ), Read Mas.

60. The term "guinea pig" was applied to men of public stature who joined com-
pany directorates for the use of their name and who normally received the sum of one
guinea for each directors' meeting attended.

BRITISH MINING 133

swindling sharks for fifty miles around appear, and combine
to oust him legally, or in a few instances even by force. . . .
Lawyers in high official positions actually buy claims adjacent
to English ones to raise a disputed boundary question. . . . 51

Unfortunately much of the indictment was true. Again
and again, British concerns were willing to apply the old
adage of "if you can't lick 'em, join 'em," and were inclined
to compromise and purchase adjoining claims rather than
risk expensive litigation. 52 Those preferring to fight their
cases through the courts found this avenue costly and not
always certain. In the twenty-seven months prior to Septem-
ber 30, 1886, the Arizona Copper Company, Ltd., recorded
legal expenses of $23,544.42. 53 In a quarter of a century of
running litigation with an American claimant, the Montana
Mining Company, Ltd., expended an estimated $400,000 in
defense of its title, only to lose the decision and its property
in 1913. 54

To be sure, litigation was the bane of the mining world
and was by no means confined to British firms in the West.
But English companies, because of their general lack of fa-
miliarity with the labyrinths of American mining law, were
particularly susceptible to legal ensnarlments. The adverse
effects of this were to act as a brake to discourage invest-
ments from abroad, as well as literally to force a number of
concerns from the western field. 55

Probably federal restrictions did not deter investments or
bring corporate failure to any great extent, except indirectly,
protests of interested bystanders to the contrary notwith-
standing. By law no alien or alien corporation could locate
a mining claim or obtain a patent directly from the govern-
ment, although a foreign concern could always acquire pat-
si. Samuel N. Townshend, Colorado: its Agriculture, Stockf ceding, Scenery, and
Shooting (London, 1879), 63, 64.

52. Report of meeting of the Richmond Consolidated Mining Company, Ltd. (Dec. 8,
1872), Mining World, Dec. 7, 1872, 1878; London Times, July 20 & Nov. 12, 1872;
Statistics of Mines and Mining in the States and Territories West of the Rocky Moun-
tains, House Executive Document No. 159, 44th Congress, 1st Session (1875-1876), 298.

53. Arizona Copper Company, Ltd., Annual Report, year ending Sept. 30, 1886.

54. Report of the Extraordinary General Meeting at Merchants' Hall, March 18,
1913, reprinted from the Mining World, March 22, 1913.

55. Colorado Miner, May 15, 1875 ; North American Exploration Company, Ltd.,
Annual Report, year ending Dec. 31, 1898.

134 NEW MEXICO HISTORICAL REVIEW

ented property from an American citizen. 66 In actual practice
because decisions of the Land Office and of federal courts
were not ordinarily enforced, 57 British firms often left title
in American hands while patents were being obtained. 58 But
rather than resort to this subterfuge and run even the slight-
est risk of confiscation, many English companies were care-
ful to purchase patented claims at the beginning. Thus, since
patented property was more expensive than unpatented, fed-
eral mining laws indirectly contributed to boosting prices
against foreign firms. Attempts of the Foreign Office to inter-
cede in favor of modification that would permit aliens to
obtain patents directly met with no success. 59

The controversial Alien Land Law, which in 1887 tech-
nically barred any foreign citizen or corporation from acquir-
ing or holding real estate in the territories, 60 presented no
real threat to British mining interests. It was not retroactive
and might easily be evaded by leasing rather than buying
property or by the established device of leaving title in the
name of subsidiary concerns or American managers. Thus,
when the Buster Mines Syndicate, Ltd., was formed in 1892
to acquire copper interests in Arizona, the promoter agreed
to give the company a ninety-nine year lease immediately
and full title "as soon as Arizona is admitted as a State"
all for the bargain price of $32,000. 61 Another Anglo-South-
western concern, the Harquahala Gold Mining Company,
Ltd., a year later signed a working agreement with an Amer-
ican firm, paying 270,000 in exchange for 97^ per cent of
the firm's profits for a period of forty-two years. 62 Although

56. Act of May 10, 1872, 17 U.S. Statutes, 91, 94.

67. Lee v. Justice Mining Company, 29 Pacific Reporter (1892), 1020-1021 ; 10 Gen-
eral Land Office Decisions (1890), 641-642.

58. Mining World, Nov. 22, 1873, 1044; Mining Journal, Aug. 15, 1874, 889; De
Lamar Mining Company, Ltd., Memorandum of Agreement (March 2, 1891) between
the Mining and Financial Trust Syndicate, Ltd., and Thomas Major, C.R.O. 33492.

59. See: Congressional Record, Jan. 11, 1875, 361; Sir Edward Thornton to Lewis
Chalmers (Washington, Jan. 81, 1875), draft, F.O. 115/596; Lord Derby to Thornton
(London, March 11, 1876) ; Thornton to Derby (Washington, March 27, 1876), F.O.
5/1543.

60. Act of March 3, 1887, 24 U.S. Statutes, 476-477.

61. Buster Mines Syndicate, Ltd., Prospectus (1892). On the back of this prospectus
is written in ink the Memorandum of Agreement (April 8, 1892) between Frederick C.
Beckwith, the vendor, and James Shearer, representing the company.

62. Skinner, Mining Manual (1894), 159; Harquahala Gold Mining Company, Ltd.,
Memorandum and Articles of Association, 1, C.R.O. 39025.

BRITISH MINING 135

territorial legislatures complained bitterly that the act was
blocking much British investment, 63 over twice as much Brit-
ish mining capital came into the territories in the three and
a quarter years immediately following the law's enactment
as came in the corresponding period just before. 64

Failure, then, might be attributed to any one or a com-
bination of several causes, of which federal policy was unim-
portant: a certain amount of chicanery or at least
misrepresentation ; overcapitalization, yet a lack of working
capital; exorbitant prices paid for property; the perils of
management across vast distances; and the perplexities of
American mining law. More basic was the fact that mining
in general is fundamentally the story of risk. There was much
truth in the old miners' proverb that only a fool predicted
beyond the end of his pick. An innate gambling spirit and
the hope of striking the mineralogical jackpot prompted
many an investor to plunge on the market, often with little
distinction between undeveloped mines and those actually
producing. British investment was but part of the larger
whole ; part of the unchecked plundering of America's natu-
ral resources at an unprecedented rate; part of what Ver-
non L. Parrington calls the "Great Barbecue." Human nature
being what it is, if investors British or otherwise stood
too close to the pit and were singed, that was not unexpected.

BRITISH JOINT-STOCK COMPANIES REGISTERED TO
OPERATE MINES OR MILLS IN ARIZONA AND NEW

MEXICO, 1860-191465

Companies formed to operate in Arizona Nominal

Name of Company Year Active? Capital

Anglo-American Copper Company 1905 Yes 2,100

Argyle Mining Company* 1900 No 100,000

63. See Memorials to Congress in Laws of Montana Territory, 15th Extraordinary
Session (1887), 111-112; General Laws of the Territory of Idaho, 15th Session (1888-
1889), 70-71; Laws of the Territory of Utah, 28th Session (1888), 220-221; Laws of
New Mexico, 28th Session (1889), 364.

64. Six companies, capitalized at 1,150,000, were formed in the period just prior
to the enactment of the law; sixteen, with a capital of 2,934,000, in the comparable
three and a quarter years following. Dakota and Montana have been excluded because
of their statehood beginning in 1889.

65. Companies whose names are followed by an asterisk were registered in Edin-
burgh ; the remainder were registered in London, except for Omnium Francais Minier,
Ltd., which was incorporated in the Isle of Guernsey. Indentations represent recon-
structions of earlier companies.

136

NEW MEXICO HISTORICAL REVIEW

Name of Company
Arivica Mining Company
Arizona Consolidated Copper Mines
Arizona Copper Company*

Arizona Copper Company*
Arizona Mortgage Corporation
Arizona Trust and Mortgage Company
British Arizona Company*
Buster Mines Syndicate
Canada Del Oro Mines

Tucson Mining and Smelting Company
Catalina Gold Mines
Catoctin Silver Mining Company
Clifton Arizona Copper Company
Clifton Consolidated Copper Mines

of Arizona

Clifton Gold Mining Company
Clifton-Morenci Syndicate
Cochise Mill and Mining Company
Colorado Copper Company
Continental Finance Syndicate
Copper Queen
Copper Queen United
Elkhart Mining Corporation
Globe Mineral Exploration Company
Gold-Basin Mining Company*
Golden Reefs
Golden State Mines

Grand Canyon Mining Company of Arizona
Harquahala Gold Mining Company

King of the Hills Gold Mining Company
Jersey Lily Gold Mines
Kaiser Gold Mines
Keating Copper Syndicate
Leland Stanford Gold Mining Company
Lynx Creek Gold and Land Company
Lynx Creek Gold Mining Company
Mammoth- Collins Gold Mines
Mammoth Gold Mines
Mineral Hills Copper Syndicate*
Monte Cristo Mining Company
Morenci and General Trust
Morenci Copper Mines
New Arizona Syndicate

Nominal

Year

Active?

Capital

1869

No

200,000

1899

Yes

150,000

1882

Yes

875,000

1884

Yes

715,000

1899

No

10,000

1883

Yes

360,000

1913

Yes

25,000

1892

Yes

15,000

1891

Yes

30,000

1894

Yes

20,000

1893

Yes

25,000

1891

No

25,000

1900

Yes

10,000

1901

Yes

500,000

1894

No

2,000

1910

No

20,000

1892

No

30,000

1867

No

150,000

1902

Yes

12,000

1884

No

500,000

1885

No

350,000

1900

Yes

300,000

1898

Yes

50,000

1896

No

150,000

1895

No

50,000

1897

Yes

100,000

1890

Yes

75,000

1893

Yes

300,000

1899

Yes

80,000

1895

Yes

150,000

1888

No

200,000

1913

Yes

11,000

1895

Yes

60,000

1890

Yes

80,000

1896

Yes

50,000

1895

Yes

100,000

1889

Yes

500,000

1900

Yes

5,000

1900

Yes

100,000

1900

Yes

50,000

1899

Yes

100,000

1912

No

2,000

BRITISH MINING

137

Name of Company

New London Mining Company

Northern Syndicate

Old Guard Mining Company

Occident Gold Mining Company

Omnium Francais Minier

Prescott Development Company*

Ray Copper Mines

Rich Hill Gold Mines

Santa Catalina Gold and Silver Mining Co.

Silver Bell Mining and Smelting Company

Spanish King Mining Company

Star Syndicate

Storm Cloud Gold Mines

Storm Cloude Syndicate

Syndicate No. 1

Tinto Copper Mines

Tubac Mining and Milling Company

Tumacacori Mining and Land Company

Sonora Company
Turquoise Syndicate
United Arizona Copper Company
Victorian Mine Syndicate
Western Syndicate

Total for Arizona

Companies formed to operate in New Mexico

Aztec Gold Mines

Carlisle Gold Mining Company

Cerrillos Mining Company

Geronimo Gold and Silver Mining

Syndicate of New Mexico
Golden Leaf

Grand Central Silver Mines
Lady Franklin Mining Company
Little Wonder Gold Mines
London and New Mexico Company
New Mexican Copper Company
Turquoise Mines (Calaite)
Turquoise Syndicate

Total for New Mexico

Total for New Mexico and Arizona (79)

Nominal

Year

Active ? Capital

1907

Yes 20,000

1887

Yes 25,000

1887

Yes 200,000

1912

Yes 20,000

1903

Yes 320,000

1895

Yes 100,000

1899

Yes 360,000

1892

No 80,000

1888

No 225,000

1890

Yes 170,000

1912

No 1,000

1889

Yes not set

1888

No 100,000

1893

No 50,000

1899

Yes 1,000

1895

Yes 100,000

1870

No 50,000

1879

Yes no informa-

tion

1874

No 1,000,000

1905

No 100

1902

Yes 200,000

1890

No not set

1887

No 25,000

9,686,200

1893

Yes 100,000

1886

Yes 200,000

1889

Yes 40,000

1899

Yes 20,000

1889

Yes 350,000

1891

Yes 200,000

1886

Yes 200,000

1900

No 30,000

1883

No 1,000

1898

No 100,000

1900

No 60,000

1897

Yes 10,000

1,311,000

[79)

10,997,200

[NEW MEXICO HISTORICAL REVIEW, Vol. 36, No. 2. April, 1961]

FRANK BOND: GENTLEMAN SHEEPHERDER
OF NORTHERN NEW MEXICO, 1883-1915

By FRANK H. GRUBBS

4. A. MacArthur Company

FRANK Bond had arrived in the Territory of New Mexico
as an alien, holding Canadian citizenship. Grateful to the
country that had rewarded his diligence with generous suc-
cess, he promptly applied for United States citizenship. In
the due course of time his final admission papers were is-
sued, and he became a full citizen, appropriately enough, in
August, 1890, 1 just about the time that he and George Bond
were beginning to explore the possibility of establishing the
first branch of G. W. Bond & Bro.

At this time, John Justus Schmidt was operating a gen-
eral store in Wagon Mound, New Mexico. A German immi-
grant who had arrived in the Territory in 1870, Schmidt had
also operated a store in Watrous, New Mexico. He had de-
veloped a highly successful merchandise business in Wagon
Mound, built a large store building and warehouse, and was
considered one of the foremost merchants in that area. In
addition to the merchandise business, Schmidt traded in
sheep and wool and kept some sheep on rent. Among his
renters was a partidario named J. D. Gallegos who thought
he might better his position by very quietly moving to Raton
and taking the Schmidt sheep along with him. In order to
prevent the loss of his sheep, Schmidt obtained a restraining
order from the court in Las Vegas, much to the chagrin of
Gallegos who followed the Schmidt family on July 1, 1892,
as they drove out to inspect some wells in which they had an
interest. Threatened with a rifle, Schmidt jumped from the
buggy and Gallegos shot him. The buggy team ran away with
Mrs. Schmidt who in her panic threw the baby out. Before
expiring, Schmidt shot the unruly sheep renter with a
derringer. 2

1. Certificate of Admission to Citizenship, Terr, of N. Mex., First Judicial District,
County of Santa Fe, August 14, 1890, Bond Papers, loc. cit. Bond's residence and moral
character witnesses were E. N. Reaser and Pedro Y. Jaramillo.

2. Interview with E. W. Howe, Wagon Mound, New Mexico, April 27, 1957 ; Helen

138

FRANK BOND 139

Thus the first branch of G. W. Bond & Bro. began in truly
western fashion, for the widowed Mrs. Schmidt sold the
entire business to the Bonds later that same year. 3

The new Wagon Mound business was also called G. W.
Bond & Bro. and was located in the store building at the
corner of Catron Avenue and Railroad in Wagon Mound,
New Mexico, the property being purchased in the names of
G. W. Bond and Frank Bond and their wives, Agnes D. Bond
and May Anna Bond. 4

No record now exists of the exact price paid for the
Schmidt business, but the original price paid for the prop-
erty appears to have been $3,000 or $3,500. The total initial
investment in the venture was about $40,000, the major por-
tion of the capital being supplied by the Espanola firm, lesser
sums being invested personally by the brothers as equal
partners. In addition to the direct loan from Espanola, the
elder Mr. Bond in Canada invested $8,000 in the business,
receiving a note from his sons. 5 At the end of 1893, the first
year of business, the Bond investments before distribution
of profits appeared as shown in Table 17.

TABLE 17
BOND INVESTMENTS IN WAGON MOUND

Amount

G. W. Bond & Bro., Espanola $26,919.29

G. W. Bond 1,676.12

Frank Bond 2,556.77

G. W. Bond, Canada 8,000.00

Total $39,152.18

The history of the Wagon Mound store is interwoven
with two men of considerable executive ability who exerted
important influences on the company through the years.

Haines, History of New Mexico (New York: New Mexico Historical Publishing Co.,
1891), p. 455; An Illustrated History of New Mexico (Chicago: The Lewis Publishing
Co., 1895), pp. 373-374. Versions of this story vary slightly in details, and since Howe's
recollection of the event is recorded nowhere else in the literature of New Mexico history,
that is the one recited here.

3. E. W. Howe, personal letter, May 8, 1957.

4. Warranty Deed, August 13, 1903 (in files of Vorenberg Bros., Wagon Mound,
New Mexico ) .

5. Records, loc. cit.

140 NEW MEXICO HISTORICAL REVIEW

These were Archibald (Archie) Mac Arthur and Manuel Pal-
tenghe. 6 MacArthur was an old friend of the Bond family
and came down from Quebec during the second year of
operation, in 1894, to work in the Wagon Mound store. 7 He
later became a principal stockholder, and the business, still
bearing his name, is presently operated by his son, Archibald
Stuart.

Manuel Paltenghe was a native of Wagon Mound and the
son of a local butcher, Alex Paltenghe. Born in 1873, he
worked for J. J. Schmidt beginning in about 1888, carried
over to work for the new owners, and later rose to become an
active partner in the business. 8

Management of the new Wagon Mound store was taken
over by G. W. Bond who moved to Wagon Mound from
Espanola, leaving Frank to manage the firm there. A part-
nership organization until it was incorporated in 1904, no
trace of a written partnership agreement has been found, and
it is highly unlikely that one did in fact exist. The individual
investment accounts varied widely during the eleven years of
partnership existence, but profits were always divided evenly
between the partners at the end of each year. As a general
rule, however, Frank Bond left his profits in the business
and let them accumulate; George, on the other hand, had
occasion from time to time to withdraw large sums from his
account, replacing them in whole or in part as the needs of
the business demanded. Table 18 reflects the partnership in-
vestment before distribution of profits at the end of the years
indicated.

TABLE 18

WAGON MOUND INVESTMENT ACCOUNTS
(dollars in thousands)

End of Year

G. W. Bond

F. Bond

1893

$ 1.7

$ 2.6

1894

4.5

5.6

1895

12.6

14.0

6. Pronounced "pat-ten-gay."

7. Interview with Stuart MacArthur. But cf., Davis, op. eit., p. 1870, recording
MacArthur' s arrival in Wagon Mound in 1890. Since the store was not operated by the
Bonds until 189S, serious doubt is cast upon the 1890 date.

8. Interview with E. W. Howe.

FRANK BOND 141

End of Year

G. W. Bond

F. Bond

1896

12.1

20.1

1897

5.2

23.6

1898

23.6

38.9

1899

19.2

42.6

1900

28.0

52.1

1901

......

1902

......

1903

20.4

53.5

During this period a continuing necessity existed for capi-
tal support of the Wagon Mound store by the Espanola busi-
ness as well as through short term cash borrowings from the
bank and also from George William Bond in Canada, as
shown in Table 19. The note in favor of G. W. Bond in
Canada was carried through the years as an investment by
the elder Mr. Bond rather than through any real requirement
of the business. The note carried interest at 4 per cent and
seems to have been finally paid in 1914, although the records
are not perfectly clear on this point.

The principal activity at Wagon Mound was the sale of
general merchandise, but sheep were traded by the Bonds at
least as early as 1894, there being $3,300 worth of sheep in
feed lots in Fort Collins, Colorado, during the winter of 1894-
1895. A significant investment in sheep continued throughout

TABLE 19

MAJOR LIABILITIES AT WAGON MOUND
(dollars in thousands)

End of Year

G. W. Bond & Bro.

Espanola

G. Wm. Bond
Canada

Other
Bills

1893

1894

$26.2
32.8

$8.0
5.0

$ 0.0
3.0

1895

40.4

5.8

5.0

1896

47.0

5.0

.0

1897

47.0

5.5

.0

1898

48.4

5.0

10.0

1899

48.3

5.0

14.5

1900

47.2

5.0

30.0

1901

47.4

......

......

1902

50.0

1903

53.2

5.0

.0

142 NEW MEXICO HISTORICAL REVIEW

the period under study, ranging from a low of $20 at the end
of 1893 to a high of more than $46,000 at the end of 1898.
The year-end investment in sheep fluctuated due to variations
in the flocks and the delivery schedule of sheep sold, but the
year-end balances largely reflect the extent of feeding opera-
tions undertaken in the winter. The sheep investment during
the eleven years of the partnership reflected a steady growth
throughout the period, but when the business was incorpo-
rated in 1904, the sheep account was transferred completely
out, possibly to Roy, New Mexico. However, after that time,
the Wagon Mound sheep investment account began to grow
steadily again, and by 1914 it was more than it had been at
the end of the partnership in 1904. 9

Detailed profit data for the years prior to 1912 are not
available, but a comparison of profits on merchandise, sheep,
and wool for the years as indicated in Table 20 reveals that
profits from sheep did not exceed the profits from the mer-
cantile business until 1914, and it is highly probable that the
earlier years reflected the same condition.

TABLE 20
WAGON MOUND NET PROFIT FOR SELECTED YEARS

Year On Merchandise On Sheep

1912 $18,104.61 $ 4,098.83

1913 26,925.83 4,269.40

1914 5,624.06 13,028.55

1915 11,152.56 15,604.66

The precise way in which the Wagon Mound sheep busi-
ness was carried on is not known since the sheep on hand and
those rented out were generally combined, and due to early
profit data being unavailable the exact extent of trading is
unknown. However, it is fairly clear that flocks were not
rented out to partidarios to any significant extent until about
1895. Some notion as to the size of the rented flocks can be
gained from Table 21. Data for other years are unavailable.

9. Records, loc. cit.

FRANK BOND 143

TABLE 21
WAGON MOUND PARTIDA FOR SELECTED YEARS

Year Sheep

1900 30,000

1903 20,000

1913 12,000a

1915 10,654

a. Rented at 20 lambs per 100 ewes. Letter Book No. 6, January 10, 1914.

Trading- in wool by the Wagon Mound store continued to
be of a relatively minor nature. George got off to an inaus-
picious start in 1895 when he wrote off to profit and loss "over
$2,000.00 for wool as we are doubtful of getting anything
further out of consignment of last August. We are sure not
to unless the tariff bill passes." 10 Profits on the sale of wool
during the years from 1912 to 1915 averaged about $3,500 a
year. Wagon Mound wool was generally marketed in Boston,
but some was also shipped to the scouring mill in Trinidad,
Colorado. 11

The mercantile business flourished, however, and it ac-
counted for the major portion of the profits, exhibiting a
steady and healthy growth. The only available profit data on
this activity are presented in Table 20, supra, but the year-
end investment in merchandise inventory is noteworthy and
is presented in Table 22.

No absolute reason can be advanced as to why the mer-
chandise inventory was valued at zero at the end of 1903, but
it may have been due to a fire loss suffered in that year. It is
interesting to note that the merchandise inventories were
valued at ninety cents on the dollar in 1897, seventy-five cents
in 1898, and ninety cents in 1899. That portion of the mer-
chandise inventory that may have been on consignment was
usually reflected as a liability.

Conservatism in asset valuation is further indicated by
the fact that open accounts receivable were usually valued at
seventy-five cents as were bills receivable, except that prior
to 1900 bills were examined individually and only those con-
sidered to be actually collectible were reported as a receivable.

10. Ibid.

11. Ibid. ; Infra, chap. viii.

144 NEW MEXICO HISTORICAL REVIEW

In later years, beginning about 1912, the value placed on bills
and accounts was increased to ninety cents on the dollar.
After 1912, real estate and merchandise inventories were
valued at seventy-five per cent of book cost.

TABLE 22

INVESTMENT IN MERCHANDISE INVENTORY,
WAGON MOUND

(dollars in thousands)

End of Year Amount

1893 $17.9

1894 19.5

1895 21.6

1896 16.8

1897 27.4

1898 28.9

1899 33.8

1900 28.9

1901

1902

1903

1904 17.1

1905 22.3

1906 28.6

1907 33.4

1908 _ 35.7

1909 34.3

1910 31.4

1911 30.5

1912 32.9

1913 40.6

1914 43.7

1915 46.0

Activity at Wagon Mound was by no means limited to
merchandise, sheep, and wool. No respectable opportunity
that promised a return of profit was denied so long as the
risk was reasonable and the expected return was commen-
surate with the risk. The regular mercantile lines were sup-
plemented with lumber, hay, wagons, and beans, there being
almost $3,000 in beans on hand at the end of 1911. Invest-
ments were made intermittently, but frequently, in horses,
mules, and cattle as well as hides and pelts beginning in 1914.
These inventory figures are typical and are quoted in Table

FRANK BOND 145

23 for comparison with those of the regular mercantile line.
In 1914 a profit of $69.50 was realized from the sale of cream
and $253.00 from the sale of bones ; the previous year saw
$890.00 made on the sale of rams. 12

TABLE 23
COMMODITY INVESTMENT, WAGON MOUND'

Item Amount

Lumber $1,500

Hay 2,500

Beans 3,000

Hides 150

a. No specific years are represented. These are typical amounts.

In accordance with Bond's general policy, cash balances
on hand were maintained at a low level, year-end balances
rarely exceeding $1,200 and more frequently being in the
$500-$750 range. Cash deposits were initially maintained in
the San Miguel National Bank, but this account was closed in
1894. Thereafter, the depository bank was the First National
Bank in Las Vegas, New Mexico. Overdrafts in the bank
account were not uncommon, ranging as high as $4,000 in
early 1900. 13

The real estate account included the store buildings and
was not depreciated during the twenty-three years under
study except that in 1912, 1913, and 1914, the investment was
valued at 75 per cent of cost. The same is true of the store
and warehouse furniture account. Initial investment in store
property was $3,976, and additional costs of about $1,600
were capitalized the following year, 1894. By 1898 the ac-
count had increased to nearly $8,000 and $3,000 more was
added in 1899. Just what this additional investment rep-
resented is unknown. However, the investment in store
buildings and furniture was completely written off in 1903,
presumably due to the fire. After the business was incor-
porated, the new investment was $4,721 in real estate and
$1,357 in furniture, increasing gradually through the follow-
ing years but never exceeding about $11,000 for both ac-
counts. 14 In 1913, the directors authorized Andy Wiest to

12. Ibid.
18. Ibid.
14. Ibid.

146 NEW MEXICO HISTORICAL REVIEW

proceed with the erection of an addition to the main store
building, and this accounted for an increase of about $2,500
in that year. 15

Investments in outside real estate were not to be ignored.
Some real estate possibly was acquired in connection with the
settlement of accounts in the store since by far the largest
part of sales were on credit, and the collection of some ac-
counts occasionally forced the owners to take over ranch
property although it was usually done unwillingly due not
only to the risk involved and the time and effort necessary to
sell it, but also to the Bonds' reluctance to take such drastic
steps against their customers and friends. Instances are cited
elsewhere to illustrate the endless patience yet dogged per-
sistence exercised in connection with credit problems.

Investment in property by G. W. Bond & Bro., Wagon
Mound, included about $300 in the Trujillo Ranch from 1896
to 1899 and the Mogote and Vermejo Ranches during the
same period for approximately $1,000 each.

A larger investment was made about the turn of the cen-
tury in the eastern plains region when the Esteros Ranch was
purchased for $6,800. This ranch, lying near Esteros Lake,
was about fifteen miles northwest of Santa Rosa, in Leonard
Wood County. 16 Whether the Esteros Ranch was situated
wholly within the Anton Chico Grant or the Preston Beck
Grant is not clear, but the entire area was of growing interest
to George and Frank Bond for in 1900 they made an impor-
tant addition to their holdings by purchasing the Preston
Beck Grant.

The grant had been officially designated as the Hacienda
of San Juan Bautista del Ojito del Rio de las Gallines when it
was made to Juan Estevan Pino in 1823. His heirs sold the
grant to Preston Beck, and it was confirmed to Preston Beck,
Jr., in I860. 17 The Bonds bought the grant, however, from
some unidentified parties in California, working through
Hugh Loudon who was at the time manager of the Scottish

15. Minutes of Regular Annual Meeting, March 1, 1913 (in the files of the A.
Mac Arthur Company, Wagon Mound, New Mexico).

16. The present Guadalupe County was formerly known as Leonard Wood County.

17. History of New Mexico, Its Resources and People (Los Angeles: Pacific States
Publishing Company, 1907), II, 176.

FRANK BOND 147

Mortgage and Land Investment Company of New Mexico, in
Las Vegas. 18 The property purchased consisted of 62,901
acres of land lying partly in Leonard Wood County and partly
in San Miguel County, directly north of Santa Rosa.

The Bonds paid $43,000 for the grant property and ex-
pected that the proceeds from its resale would more than
cover their anticipated losses on the Esteros Ranch which
they did not consider to be worth its cost. 19 The Esteros
Ranch and the Beck Grant investments were therefore com-
bined, 20 representing a total investment of $49,933.38, and
when the Wagon Mound store was reorganized in 1904 and
G. W. Bond moved to Trinidad, this investment was trans-
ferred from the Wagon Mound investment to the Trinidad
books of G. W. Bond & Bro. The grant was rented to J. D.
Hand who was given an option to buy the grant at $1.60 per
acre, to be paid $10,000 down, $15,000 on delivery, and the
balance at 6 per cent interest. 21 The Bonds wanted to net
$1.50 per acre on the grant, but when it was finally sold in
1907, their hopes were not realized and they profited only
$20,680.

In 1899 G. W. Bond & Bro., Wagon Mound, invested in a
new business venture to be known initially as G. W. Bond &
Bro. (later as Bond & Wiest) and located at Cabra Springs,
New Mexico, on the Beck Grant discussed above. 22 This
branch, in partnership with A. W. Wiest, is examined in de-
tail elsewhere, 23 but like the Beck Grant, this store invest-
ment was transferred from the Wagon Mound books at the
time of reorganization in 1904, being moved directly to the
capital structure of the Bond & Wiest Company. Thus, from
the first expansion of the Bond interests in Espanola to the
Wagon Mound area, there arose the third G. W. Bond & Bro.
store in New Mexico.

The fourth G. W. Bond & Bro. establishment also evolved

18. Letter of Hugh Loudon to G. W. Bond & Bro., February 3, 1900, Bond Papers,
loc. cit.

19. Records, loc. cit.

20. Ibid.

21. Copy Book, February 10, 1906, p. 550 (in the files of Bond & Wiest, Cuervo,
New Mexico).

22. Records, loc. cit.

23. Infra, chap v.

148 NEW MEXICO HISTORICAL REVIEW

directly from the Wagon Mound business and was located in
Roy, New Mexico, a village of about 300 inhabitants in Mora
County on the Dawson Railway running between Dawson,
New Mexico, and Tucumcari. 24 This branch was put in some-
time between 1900 and 1903, the exact date being undeter-
mined. However, since the town was established by Frank
and William Roy in 1902, 25 the Bonds must have opened up
there either late in 1902 or early in 1903, and at the end of
1903 the accounts reflect an investment in buildings at Roy
in the amount of $6,537.24. This investment, along with the
sheep, Cabra store, and the Beck Grant were transferred
from the Wagon Mound books during the 1904 reorganiza-
tion, and no further trace of the Roy property has been found.
However, it was not, like the other G. W. Bond & Bro. estab-
lishments, a mercantile store. Rather it appears to have
included only sheep facilities and range, there being some
2,854 sheep on rent there to George Gonzales from 1907
through 1910. 26

During this era an unsolved mystery appears among the
Bond records. It is in the form of a statement of the Dozier
Curio business for the year 1903 which is presented in
Table 24 and leaves many questions completely unanswered.
Whether the Bonds owned a half interest in this store with
C. L. Pollard or whether the Bonds were simply a creditor
is uncertain. The implication, however, is that they had a
definite interest in the business. No receivable is shown on
the books of any other Bond store in existence at the time,
nor as a matter of fact is the Dozier Curio business mentioned
or even implied anywhere in the records. No one interviewed
had ever heard of it, and indeed even its very location is un-
known. The physical position and appearance of this state-
ment, however, strongly suggests that this was a business in

24. Max Frost and Paul A. F. Walter (eds.). The Land of Sunshine (Santa Fe:
New Mexican Printing Company, 1904), p. 207.

25. New Mexico Folklore Society, New Mexico Place-Name Dictionary, First Col-
lection-Committee Report, May 14, 1949, p. 28.

26. Records, loc. eft. Not solved is the question of why there would be over $6,000 in
a buildings account if there were no store. The records are extremely vague on the point,
and while the preponderance of evidence seems to indicate that there was no mercantile
establishment at Roy, there is some justification for suspecting that there may have been
some kind of commissary facilities at least.

FRANK BOND 149

which the Bonds did in fact own an interest and concerning
which they received financial data. We therefore put it down
as being a part of the Bond system which, like the Bond Sheep
Commission Company and the Roy branch, have all but faded
into a forgotten past.

TABLE 24
STATEMENT OF THE DOZIER CURIO BUSINESS FOR 1903"

Assets

Mdse on hand Dec. 31, 1903 $799.09

Book A/c s. 344.61

Cash on hand 3.99 $1147.69

Liabilities

Due G. W. Bond & Bro. $282.45

Due C. L. Pollard & Co. 487.74

Due other parties 52.05

Undivided Profits 325.45 $1147.69

a. The statement is given in the table in exactly the same form as the original.

By 1903, the Wagon Mound partnership had grown to
encompass not only the original store site but also three ware-
house buildings located across the street on right-of-way
property belonging to the Santa Fe Railroad. These three
buildings were leased from the railroad, and the two which
are still standing today are still under such a lease arrange-
ment. 27 On August 3, 1903, the store buildings were sold on
a Warranty Deed to Simon Vorenberg, and the warehouses
were vacated on a Quit-Claim Deed in favor of Vorenberg. 28
The business was moved a short distance to the north into a
building purchased from the Romero family at a cost of ap-
proximately $4,700. 29

Shortly after moving in, the new store building burned to
the ground in the first of several serious fires the Bonds were
to suffer and which served to make them highly conscious of
adequate fire insurance coverage on their buildings, stock,

27. Interview with Walter Vorenberg, Wagon Mound, New Mexico, April 27, 1957.

28. Deeds dated August 3, 1903 (in the files of Vorenberg Bros., Wagon Mound, New
Mexico).

In his biography of Simon Vorenberg, Coan (loc. cit., p. 206) writes: "He pur-
chased the C. [sic] W. Bond general store at Wagon Mound," implying that the Bonds
sold the stock as well as the store buildings to Vorenberg. This detail is unresolved.

29. Interview with Stuart MacArthur.

150 NEW MEXICO HISTORICAL REVIEW

and wool investments. 30 No evidence is available that would
show whether or not this fire was adequately covered by
insurance. However, since the real estate and merchandise
investments do not appear in the accounts at the beginning
of 1904, it can at least be assumed that the loss was suffi-
ciently serious as to justify their write-off.

The increasing confidence which the Bonds placed in
MacArthur is indicated by an arrangement that was made
with him in 1898 whereby he was to receive 3 per cent of the
annual profit. In that year this amounted to $228.23, and the
following year his participation in earnings was increased
to 5 per cent, resulting in credits to him of $997.02 in 1899
and $678.60 in 1900. This confidence in MacArthur was cli-
maxed when the fire loss occasioned the major reorganization
mentioned above and which was marked by the establish-
ment of a corporate structure to replace the partnership. The
new company was capitalized at $30,000 under the laws of
the Territory of New Mexico on June 16, 1904, with 30,000
shares of one-dollar stock authorized and issued. Archie Mac-
Arthur and Manuel Paltenghe were admitted to the business,
the former becoming the principal stockholder. Table 25 gives
the respective interests of the incorporators at that time.

TABLE 25

A. MACARTHUR COMPANY ORIGINAL STOCKHOLDERS

Name Shares

A. MacArthur 12,000

Manuel Paltenghe 9,000

G. W. Bond 4,500

Frank Bond 4,500

Total 30,000

G. W. Bond was elected president of the A. MacArthur
Company, as the new business was called, with Manuel Pal-
tenghe as vice-president and A. MacArthur as secretary,
treasurer, and general manager. This organization continued
unchanged for the next seven and a half years. As general
manager, MacArthur was to be paid a salary of $1,400 per
year and had "full authority to engage help and discharge

30. Ibid.

FRANK BOND 151

same, sign checks, and do all business that would naturally
fall to the manager and secretary." 31 G. W. Bond, who had
been at Wagon Mound since the business was started, now
turned over active management of the store to MacArthur
and moved to Trinidad, Colorado, where he continued his
partnership relation with his brother and also entered into
the investment and real estate business. From this time on-
ward, although he retained an active interest in the various
Bond enterprises, his influence was felt largely through
Frank and from afar. Archie MacArthur remained at Wagon
Mound in active control of the business.

In July, 1911, MacArthur became sick and required major
surgery. Through Dr. Northwood, G. W. Bond proposed that
the Bonds pay for the operation and all the attendant ex-
penses, to which Frank readily agreed, pointing out that the
expense should not be charged against the business but
should be borne fully by themselves on a personal basis. 32

In order to fill the vacancy left by MacArthur, Frank
Bond brought in a temporary dry goods manager by the name
of Flack from Colorado Springs, and herein lies another
illustration of the Bond readiness to extend special considera-
tion to those who merited extra help. Flack's wife was "kind
of a damned fool never wants Flack to be out of her sight" 33
and so in order to get Flack, Bond paid the travel and living
expenses of Flack's wife to and from Colorado Springs while
he was on the assignment.

MacArthur's incapacitation, of course, demanded a per-
manent replacement with not only a sound background in
mercantile store management but also a thorough knowledge
of sheep and wool husbandry. Such a replacement was found
in the person of A. W. Wiest who had been actively manag-
ing the Bond & Wiest store at Cuervo, so it was decided that
he would move to Wagon Mound, take over the management
of the business there, and at the same time retain control
of the Cuervo store. 34 Accordingly, for some time Andy Wiest

31. Minutes of Board of Directors' Meeting, June 16, 1904 (in the files of the A.
MacArthur Company, Wagon Mound, New Mexico).

32. Letter Book No. 6, July 3, 1911.

33. Ibid., July 8, 1911.

34. Ibid.

152 NEW MEXICO HISTORICAL REVIEW

shuttled between the two stores at frequent intervals, man-
aging both. 35

A. MacArthur died in February, 1912, 36 just a few days
after stock transfers were effected to bring A. W. Wiest
formally into the business. No positive proof exists, but cor-
respondence between Frank and George Bond in 1914 indi-
cates that the funds for Wiest's stockholdings were loaned
by the Bonds who took Wiest's note for the $7,000, secured
by the stock certificates and that later, in 1914, Andy Wiest
proposed to declare a $35,000 dividend in order to take up
his indebtedness, even if it became necessary to borrow
money in order to do it. 37

Stock ownership now stood as displayed in Table 26, and
except for shifts necessary to transfer MacArthur's interest
to his heirs, no further changes were made during the period
through 1915. MacArthur left behind him a widow and four
children, Mary Catherine, Helen Elizabeth, Monica Louise,
and A. Stuart. 38 The latter now operates the business in
Wagon Mound.

TABLE 26

A. MACARTHUR COMPANY STOCKHOLDERS AS OF

JANUARY, 1912

Name Shares

A. MacArthur 9,000

M. Paltenghe 7,000

G. W. Bond 3,500

Frank Bond 3,500

A. W. Wiest 7,000'

Total 30,000

a. Three thousand shares were transferred from MacArthur, 2,000 from Paltenghe,
1,000 from G. W. Bond, and 1,000 from Frank Bond.

At a special stockholders' meeting held in January, 1912,
just before MacArthur's death, A. W. Wiest was elected sec-
retary, treasurer, and general manager while MacArthur was
made second vice-president. Paltenghe, MacArthur, and
Wiest were authorized salaries of $1,800 per year, G. W.

35. Letter Book No. 57, April 26, 1915, p. 650.

86. Interview with Stuart MacArthur.

87. Letter Book No. 8, January 10, 1914 ; Letter Book No. 51, January 28, 1914, p. 59.
38. Stock Certificate No. 11 (in the files of the A. MacArthur Company, Wagon

Mound. New Mexico).

FRANK BOND 153

Bond receiving nothing as president since he was now living
in Boise, Idaho. 39

The combination of Andy Wiest and Manuel Paltenghe
raised some personnel problems which became serious enough
in early 1914 to motivate Wiest's suggestion that Paltenghe
be removed. 40 The seat of the difficulty is not clear but it
seems to have stemmed from ill feelings between them of
long standing. That Frank Bond found it necessary on at
least one occasion to extract from Andy a promise to leave
whiskey alone implies part of the difficulty; 41 on the other
hand, Frank Bond considered him a particularly good finan-
cier 42 and after receipt of his 1914 statement he was well
pleased with Wiest's performance. 43 Neither was Paltenghe
without fault. An occasion arose in September, 1914, whereby
Frank Bond sold some 2,500 ewes at Encino which had pre-
viously been mouthed by Paltenghe and were pronounced to
be young ewes. Examination later revealed that 706 head
were old ewes, including 150 gummers. Bond was highly
critical of Paltenghe, saying :

I have always regarded him as a very trustworthy and honor-
able man, but I must say that I don't believe that any man
could have mouthed that stuff and left in so many old ewes and
which would be known as old ewes to any man who knew
anything at all about sheep. 44

Since in Bond's opinion both men had shortcomings as well
as strong points, the difficulty, while serious, was probably
one of personality conflict.

Frank Bond felt that all stockholders must be subordi-
nated to the consideration that there must be harmony at
Wagon Mound, and he seriously considered the possibility of
a separate sheep company, not handling lambs or wool, with
himself, George, and Manuel Paltenghe as partners, that
would net about 12 per cent on their investment. This would

39. Minutes of Special Stockholders' Meeting, January 24, 1912 (in the files of the
A. MacArthur Company, Wagon Mound, New Mexico).

40. Letter Book No. 6, January 10, 1914.

41. Ibid., February 23, 1914.

42. Letter Book No. 51, January 28, 1914, p. 59.

43. Letter Book No. 56, January 19, 1915, p. 533.

44. Letter Book No. 55, September 30, 1914, p. 346.

154 NEW MEXICO HISTORICAL REVIEW

have had the effect of separating Paltenghe from the Wagon
Mound business and at the same time make room for Joe Hoi-
brook to come into Wagon Mound from the Bond & Wiest
store at Cuervo, a move recommended by Wiest. 45 It was
suggested that Manuel Paltenghe could live somewhere else
and visit the sheep camps once a month or so, 46 but none of
these arrangements materialized and Paltenghe continued
to hold his 7,000 shares of stock for another twenty-five
years. However, it was undoubtedly from these considera-
tions that the Bond Sheep Commission Company developed
and came into existence.

The Bond Sheep Commission Company was set up as a
joint venture of the A. Mac Arthur Company, Wagon Mound,
and the G. W. Bond & Bro. Mercantile Company of Encino,
New Mexico. Since G. W. Bond and Frank Bond were the
major stockholders in the store at Encino (L. F. Nohl held
only one share), the parties at interest in the Bond Sheep
Commission Company were G. W. Bond, Frank Bond, A. W.
Wiest, and Manuel Paltenghe. It was organized in 1913 for
the purpose of buying a large herd of sheep as an investment.
In June, 1914, Frank Bond wrote to Will McClure in An-
tonito, Colorado, saying that they had bred these particular
sheep for a year "and are now cleaning up and dividing the
profits." 47 At the time of writing the flock amounted to 4,000
ewes and 3,200 lambs, a total of 7,200 sheep. 48 It was from
this herd that the 2,500 sheep were mouthed by Paltenghe
and sold at Encino. 49 After the venture was completed some-
time in 1914, the company ceased to exist and passed into
history along with the Dozier Curio business as one of the
shortest-lived and least known of the Bond enterprises. It was
probably a profitable one, but no record remains to show its
overall result.

Profitwise, the Wagon Mound business was successful
right from the very start in 1893, realizing a profit of $6,-
123.64 during the very first year of operation, representing

45. Letter Book No. 6, January 10, 1914 ; ibid., January 20, 1914.

46. Ibid., January 20, 1914.

47. Letter Book No. 53, June 12, 1914, p. 41.

48. Ibid.

49. Letter Book No. 55, September 30, 1914, p. 355.

FRANK BOND 155

a return of about 20 per cent on the total family interest. 50
During ten of the eleven years of partnership, the business
earned for the two brothers a total of $168,000, an average
of $8,400 per year to each of the partners from this one store
alone.

Even though capital investments in the Wagon Mound
venture came from three sources and in varying amounts,
profits were divided evenly and credited to George and Frank
Bond, none flowing back through the parent business to be
reflected as income from an investment by the Espanola firm.

Table 27 compares the investment the Bonds had in the
business from 1893 through 1903 both in terms of their part-
nership account and in terms of total investment including
the capital support supplied from Espanola. Profits and profit
relationships to financial interest are shown, both with re-
spect to the proprietary accounts and to the total capital
structure.

The profit picture after incorporation is unfortunately
not so clear because profits for all years are not available.
Table 28 shows the undivided profits for each of the twelve
years from 1904 through 1915, but since the stockholders
distributed profits to themselves in undetermined amounts,
the data presented do not reflect earnings. Even disregarding
the profit distributions that must have taken place from time
to time, the increase in undivided profits during this period
indicates an average increase of $11,500 annually. However,
it must be borne in mind that after 1904, the Bonds only re-
ceived roughly one-fourth of the dividends. The profits for
some years are known, however, and they provide an indica-
tion that the corporate period under MacArthur and Wiest
was every bit as successful as was the previous period under
the managership of G. W. Bond. The available data are also
included in Table 28.

50. Records, loc. cit.

156

NEW MEXICO HISTORICAL REVIEW

3

H

Bi

pic

E

c

t

CO

EH

O

H

PH

^

Q

^1

H

1

i!

CO x-.

w w

1

t- 55 g

CO *-" 3

w J

i

& .S

<J O w

H a

1

ii

Q A

55 1

O ^

O

<5

5

o

H

O

5

1

o

CO

**

^

1

1
I

1

PH

e

a

o

o

S

J

t-l iH CO

U5OiOCOOO<3>rHCO

oco't>oJioo'ot>

O <N

o co

kO 10

COrHD<NOOlOOOrH
rH CO CO CO CO CO OO

* "?

iH
. 00

iH C<1 CO CO

0000000000000005030505

FRANK BOND 157

TABLE 28

EARNINGS AND UNDIVIDED PROFITS
AT WAGON MOUND, 1904-1915

(dollars in thousands)

Year

Undivided Profit
at End of Year

Profit
for Year

1904

$ 9.9

$. . .

1905

23.3

. . .

1906

39.8

. . .

1907

53.8

. . .

1908

66.3

12.3

1909

86.7

...

1910

69.8

. . .

1911

84.1

. . .

1912

115.8

31.7

1913

117.7

39.7

1914

138.2

26.3

1915

138.4

34.3

None of the profit figures shown in Table 28 include allow-
ances for bad debts or for depreciation since it was not until
1913 that refinements in the bookkeeping- system provided
for these expenses on a formal basis. Beginning in 1913, these
reserve accounts were referred to as "Sinking Funds . . . de-
ducted and set to one side to protect any depreciation and
loss that may occur." 51 They amounted to $12,254.41 by the
end of 1915.

Table 29 tabulates the profits for the years 1912 through
1915 by type of activity and presents an outline of the type
of business activities carried on during those years and the
relative importance of each.

61. Ibid.

158 NEW MEXICO HISTORICAL REVIEW

TABLE 29

WAGON MOUND PROFITS BY ACTIVITY
(dollars in thousands)

Activity

1912

1913

1914

1915

Wool

$ 4.2

$ 3.4

$ 2.7

$ 3.1

Sheep

4.1

4.3

13.3

15.6

Cattle

.2

.7

.4

.1

Hides & Pelts

.2

.3

.3

.3

Interest

3.2

2.0

2.5

1.6

Discounts

1.7

1.3

1.2

1.4

Merchandise

18.1

26.9

5.6

11.2

Miscellaneous a

. . .

.8

.3

1.0

Total

$31.7

$39.7

$26.3

$34.3

a. Includes profit on rams, cream, and bones.

Just prior to the close of the period with which we are
here concerned, the Bond-Connell Sheep and Wool Company
in Albuquerque became the next enterprise to spring, at least
partially, from the fertile loins of the Wagon Mound busi-
ness, for in 1914 the A. MacArthur Company invested $5,000
in the stock of the new venture along with several others.
The Bond-Connell Sheep and Wool Company is treated
separately and in more detail elsewhere in this paper. 52

62. Infra, chap. xiii.

WEST OF THE PECOS

By E. L. STEVE STEPHENS

(Concluded)

The next day Miller had them boys to get the chuck wagon
ready to send to town after chuck. In a couple days Miller
sent the wagon in by one of the boys and sent the saddle to
the man we borrowed it from and told him to pick my bedroll
up and bring it back. We didn't do much until the wagon got
back. We got the saddle ponies up. The chuck wagon was
going on a cow work to mark and brand the calves and hold
the fat cows and the steers. Going up the trail to Trinidad
where we are to deliver them to. The chuck wagon in from
town and we are ready to start the cow work. It late in the
spring. Mr. Miller went back to Kan. City. We finished the
cow work around the first of Sept. and we started our journey
to deliver the cows and steers to Trinidad, Colorado, about
Sept. 15.

It was a rough trip going up there. So much rain and the
Indians. The wagon boss didn't kick off with the Indian Chief
so good. The chief wanted a fat cow for his people to eat and
the boss turned him down. That wasn't good. The boss didn't
know anything about Indians. He never been around Indians
much. I told the boss if he would let me handle the outfit we
could make it all right for I had lived and been around them
15 years. So he did. So the next morning I rode up to the
Indian's camp and got off my pony and the chief come out of
his teepee with a rifle in his hand. I made him a few signs. He
set his rifle down. I told him what I was going to do. So the
chief and three Indians went back with me.

We rode up to our wagon. I told the boss to have the cow-
boys to throw the cattle together so the boss did. I and the
chief rode into the herd and I told the chief to pick him out
one so he did. I told the boss I was going to help the Indians
to their camp with the cow. I told the boss they could start
on with the herd, I would overtake them. We made it to the
Indian camp all right. Well, chief, old Pal, I will go and over-
take the herd. The chief shook my hand and pulled my hat off

159

160 NEW MEXICO HISTORICAL REVIEW

and patted me on the head. That was their way to show love
and friendship and said come back and see us. I said I sure
will if I am in this country, and I rode off.

Overtaken the herd. Always one smart alec. This smart
alec said to me we thought you had taken up with an Indian
squaw. I said to him no more wise cracks out of you. The boss
said boys, Steve got us out of this jam. This wise guy had
his tale [tail] over his back all the way to Trinidad at me. I
didn't have anything to say to him, but I kept an eye on him.
We finally reached Trinidad and turned the cattle over to the
man bought them. Was a big wild west show going on so we
stayed there three days and taken it in. We hadn't been to
town in seven or eight months. Our hair and beards were
long. We all got cleaned up the first evening and went to the
show. And after the show was over we went to the dance.

This smart guy didn't take any hand in the dance. But
the rest of us cowboys had a swell time. Some time after
midnight we went to the wagon and went to bed. The next
morning after breakfast the wrangler got the saddle ponies
in. We were getting ready to go to the show ground. Some of
the boys was going to enter in the bronc riding. It was a good
show and a good dance that night. The second day we was
there several of us cow punchers taken a part in the wild west
show. I was in the cow roping. I rope my cow and rode back
to the chute and got off my pony. Someone slapped me on my
shoulder. I looked around and it was Goldy Smith. I hadn't
seen her in seven years. I rode against her in Durango, Colo.,
in 1907.

We had lots to talk about. We went had supper together
and we went to the dance and had a good time. Goldy's father
was there. He was pretty feeble. Mr. Smith had moved to
Trinidad. After the dance was over I went and stayed all
night with them. He was a big cow man. The next morning
around five o'clock, Mrs. Smith put the coffee pot on. I heard
someone up so I got up and it was Mrs. Smith. Wasn't long
until the coffee was ready. She poured two cups of coffee. She
carried Mr. Smith coffee to the bed for him. I had drink one
cup of coffee by that time Goldy had got up and come through
where her dad was in bed. Goldy poured her a cup. She said

WEST OF THE PECOS 161

Steve, Dad wants us to come in where he was. Mrs. Smith
fixed breakfast. She called us and we set down and eat. Mr.
Smith said, Steve how about you working for me? I will give
you a good job. If I went to work for you I would have to go
back to the 0. B. and get my saddle ponies. I told Mr. Smith
I would let him know in a day or two.

We stayed two more days and we taken in the wild west
show. The last evening we was in Trinidad I saw Mr. Smith
and I told him it was so late in the fall. I will go to work for
him in the spring if he wanted me to. He said that would be
all right. So the chuck wagon and us cowboys left for the
ranch. It taken us three weeks to reach the ranch. The boss
paid some of the cowpunchers and they went to town and
waited for the next spring work so they could get a job. The
big part of the cowpunchers just work spring and fall. So the
boss kept four of us cowpunchers counting that smart alec.
Well the winter wasn't so bad. Well, spring was here and the
grass was putting out.

One day the boss and I was riding along together. I told
him I was going to quit. He said Steve, I wish you would
stay on. I got my saddle pony and my pack pony up to feed
them a few days so they could make the trip all right. I had
the ponies up three or four days and this smart guy left the
gate open and they got out. I said to him why did you let
my ponies out? You go and get them ponies and put them in
the lot. When I want them out I will turn them out. He got
his tail over his back. I said to him, you keep on you might
get the cuckle burrs combed out of your tail. The boss was
standing there taking all in.

About the middle of April I saddled up and packed the
other pony and pulled out. The second day I reached Ft. Bar-
clay. There was where I reached the Santa Fe Trail and
travelled to Raton. I put my ponies in the stage coach barn
and taken the stage coach for Trinidad to see Mr. Smith. I
found Mr. Smith sick. I stayed several days. I believe it made
him feel better to see me.

He said to me, Steve, you didn't fool me. He asked me
where did I leave my ponies. I said in Raton. We talked three
days. He told me all about the ranch. He had sold the cattle

162 NEW MEXICO HISTORICAL REVIEW

and the ranch, but would turn it over now. Be about 8 months
before I will. I want you to go down and take it over. I asked
Mr. Smith who are running it. Now, I said, Mr. Smith, it's
not a good policy for a stranger to go on a job and take over
if the owner are not there. I don't want to go down and have
any trouble with the boss. He said I have sent for him to
come to see me. I said what are the matter ? He said haven't
branded as many calves as they should.

I stayed around Trinidad until his boss come in. I never
did see him. Mr. Smith told me what he wanted me to do and
where I could get anything for the ranch I needed at Raton,
N. M. All the time I was there I stayed in their home. I said
to Mr. Smith one night I guess in the morning I will take the
stage coach and go to Raton and get my ponies and go to the
ranch. When I was ready to take the coach, Mr. Smith said,
Steve, when I get well I will see you. I arrived in Raton the
next day and stayed all night.

The next day I left for the ranch. The ranch (brand CT)
was about half way from Maxwell and Springer on the Red
River. I travelled down the old Santa Fe Trail to Cimarron
then quit the trail, turned east. The evening of the third day
I rode up to the ranch. Was two cowpunchers come out the
door. One said get down stranger. I got off and wrapped my
bridle reins around the hitching pole and went in. They had
some coffee made. I drank a cup. Them buttons didn't have
much to say. I am going to unsaddle my pony. I untied my
bedroll and pulled it off my pack pony. They looked at each
other and started leading my ponies to the lot so they followed
me. I unsaddled and put them in the lot. I seen some feed so
I fed them. All time I was looking around after a while one
said us go and fix supper. We went to the house. I asked would
it be all right for me to put my bedroll in the house. Yes, they
said.

They started fixing supper. Didn't have much to fix.
Didn't have any beef and not much bacon. We eat what they
cooked. After supper one said to me do you want your horses
turned out? No just leave them in the lot. The next morning
they fixed breakfast. We eat and one drove some ponies up
and put them in the corral and caught them a horse each. Was

WEST OF THE PECOS 163

a good looking dun pony in the bunch. I said who rides him.
One said the boss was here rode him. I said where is he? He
quit and left the other day. I said to them cow pokes how
about me riding him ? You can I guess. He may buck all time
I was. I had a eye on them guys. I said to them how many
ponies you all have in you all mount? They told me. How
many in the lot the boss rode. Mr. Smith had told me how
many saddle ponies he had on the ranch.

I went with them pokes that day. I seen some big calves.
Wasn't branded. I said Who them calves belong to? Better
brand them, they might get wandered off from their mothers.
No one said anything. I let on like I could read the brand
was on them calves mother. We returned to the ranch house
late in the evening. We made some coffee. Later we cooked
dinner and supper both in one. Wasn't much to cook at this
outfit. We was eating. I asked who have been taking the chuck
wagon to town after chuck ? One said I have, went twice. Was
no more said about that. I found out what I wanted to know
that day.

The next morning while we was eating breakfast I said
boys, Mr. Smith sent me down here to run this ranch and
I am going to run it to suit me. After breakfast I said boys
we are going to get the chuck wagon ready to go to town. Up
to now I never told them my name. They said what are your
name. I said Steve. They looked at each other. I asked them
ruckes [rookies] their name. One was Paul and the other was
John. That night I told Paul in the morning I want you to
take the chuck wagon and go to Raton and get chuck and
horse feed. I made out a list for him to get. The next morn-
ing I started him out for town. The wagon was gone 8 days.

The next day after I sent the wagon to town I said John
us go up to Cisco Spring. I wanted to look around. Was an
old adobe house set back up in a canyon a little way from the
spring. I had been there one time before but didn't get off
my pony then. So we rode up and got off. I kept my hand on
my gun. You could tell might be a wild cat jump out. I was
looking around. Was several short pieces of rope hanging
down from a limb in a large tree. I walked around the sod
shanty. Wasn't but one door in it and two small look out

164 NEW MEXICO HISTORICAL REVIEW

holes. The door was fastened with a horse shoe bent together
on the outside. I looked around and found something to pry
the horse shoe apart and went in. Wasn't much in the house.
Some old pans and two pair of boots, one pair had Wild Bill
on them and the other pair said Cisco. It sain on the boots
June 1900. It was carved with a knife and I kicked the junk
around and found a cow horn was burned on. This what it
said. We are staying here is 1895. All the time I was in there
John was a little nervous. I said, John, have you ever been
in here. I said I never was in there. I have worked for Mr.
Smith a year. This is the third time I have ever been at the
shack.

I shut the door and we rode off. I never did say what I
saw in there. We pulled out on the way to the ranch. When
we left the ranch I went to look for a fat calf to butcher for
the ranch. We were riding down a canyon and run into a
bunch of cattle. Was a cow with a fat calf by her side. I told
John us carry this cow and calf in. He didn't ask any ques-
tions. We drove them on to the ranch and put them in the
corral and tied the gate good. I sure was hungry.

We went to the house and we started fixing dinner and
supper together. That's the way we cooked. The next morning
I said, John, us butcher that calf. He looked at me but didn't
say a word. We butchered the calf and hung it on the side of
the house. We had steak and gravy then. We drug the intrails
off that night. I thought every wild cat and every lion every
panther in the country was there. They growled and fought
all night. Way in the night John called me. I never did hear
anything like that before. I said John, they are filled up. Next
morning John and I went down where they were. Hair and
fuzz were all around there. John said something got tore up.
I said maybe so.

In a few days Paul come in with the chuck wagon. We
unloaded the chuck and horse feed. I told the boys to put the
chuck box and the sheet and bows on the wagon. I will be
back in two or three days. I am going and get us a cook over
east of the ranch about 10 or 11 miles. Was a Mexican settle-
ment. Vermejo Creek valley. I figured I could get a cook over
there. I rode up to a very nice house. A man walked out of the

WEST OF THE PECOS 165

house and told me to get down and told me to come in so I went
in and his wife poured us some coffee. I asked him where can
I find a man would cook for a chuck wagon. I need one for
a few days. Yes I do. He has been cooking for a sheep wagon.
So he and I went and seen him. This man went with me. Told
him to come up to my place in the morning. I stayed the night
with this Mexican. He had two good looking girls. After sup-
per the girls sang and played the guitar. The next morning
my cook was there. At the table he told me he would come
over and help me work. I and my cook pulled out for the
ranch. This Mexican was riding a pony and leading a burro
with his bed on it.

It was late in the evening when we got to the ranch. I told
the boys to go and bring the saddle horses in. They still didn't
know what we was going to do. I hadn't told them we was
going to brand them big calves they failed to brand. The Mexi-
can I went to see come and brought two more hands. We
pulled out south about 15 miles and camped next day. We
started gathering them gib calves marking and branding.
We camped there three days. Then we moved back north a
few miles. We worked that country then moved again. By
this time we were close to the ranch. We pulled the chuck
wagon into the ranch and we worked from the ranch. We
finally finished. It was a rough job, but I figured it would be.

By this time it was late in the fall. Mr. Smith come down
and stayed a few days. Then I carried him to the Santa Fe
Trail and put him on the stage coach and he went back home
to Trinidad. The snow began falling early this winter but
everything wintered very good.

The first of May just around the corner and then was
when the work began. One morning one of my cowboys got
bucked off and broke his leg. I splint it up the best I could.
Was a Mexican doctor in that settlement where my Mexican
friend lived. I told the boy to stay here with the boy got his
leg broke and I would go and get the doctor. I went in a hurry
and the doctor came back with me. He taken the splints off
I put on and he looked at it good and put some dope on, then
he had some splints he had made. He done it up in good shape.

In about a month he was hobbling around. About time I

166 NEW MEXICO HISTORICAL REVIEW

hadn't heard from Mr. Smith. Time was just about up to turn
the ranch and cattle over to the man bought the outfit. In a
day or two here come that Blow Joe and brought four city
cowboys with him. Didn't do anything the first day. Mr.
Smith came in that evening. The next morning I told my boys
to find the horses. Mr. Smith and I was talking. I saw them
city cowboys go in the corral with their ropes in their hands.
I went down to the corral. I said I will do the roping here.
My pet dun Pony [,] the first pony I rode on this ranch [,]
was a smart guy said to me I am going to ride that dun. I
said you ride any one I tell you to. I am still the boss. He
said I come down here to be the boss. I said look here, drug
store cowboy, you are going to do what I tell you to do.

Mr. Smith told that buyer he would have to get him a
cook so he put one of his city cowboys cooking. Didn't have
much to eat. One said to one of my cowboys do that boss wear
that gun all thim [time]. Yes he does. Where is he from?
This boy said I don't know. What is his name? Steve is all
I know.

We got along very will. Turned the cattle and the ranch
over and Mr. Smith went back home in a day or so. I saddled
up that good dun pony and pack one and turned it to them.
I don't know how they will come out in that country. They had
never been in the west.

I rode across the mountain to the Santa Fe Trail and
travelled the Santa Fe Trail to Raton and I put my ponies
in the coach yard and told the man to take care of them until
I get back. I taken the stage to Trinidad to see Mr. and Mrs.
Smith and Goldy. I stayed around Trinidad a few days and
went back to Raton. I was there a few days I run into Miller.
He owns the 101 ranch. He was on his way to the ranch. He
asked me to go with him. I had workfed] for the 101. I said
I will go with him. So we taken the stage to San Juan Pueblo
that on the Rio Grande. The foreman had the buck board
there to meet Miller. It was late in the day when we left San
Juan. We had to stay one night on our way to the ranch. We
drove in the next day. Was several cowboys around there.
I set around and listened at them shoot the bull and brag on
themselves. What they done the last show the 101 pulled off.

WEST OF THE PECOS 167

That gave me the belly ache. They asked me how long have
you been in this country? I said a few days. Are you going to
work in this country? I said maybe. The cook ring the bell
for supper. They made a bull run. I walked up and got me a
tin plate and a tin cup. Got some coffee and filled my plate
with red beans and some steak. Went and set down and was
eating. Miller and his foreman come over where I was. Miller
said, Steve, this is my foreman, Straton. He said a few words.
I said yes or no. I figured that outfit out. The next morning
they was saddling up the straw boss asked me if I wanted
to go with them. No, I will hang around here. They sure had
ranhand horses. Could be no other way the bunch rode them.
We was there a week. Miller asked me was I going to work
for him. I don't think I will. I believe I will go east a little
ways.

The foreman carried us back to San Juan and we taken
the stage coach and I stopped off at Raton. Stayed round there
a few days. I left there went a southeast and hit the old
Goodnight Trail. Travelled down it to old Fort Roy [town]
where the Goodnight Trail and the Santa Fe Trail cross each
other. Then I travelled the Santa Fe Trail to Pasamonte. I
stopped over a few days and let my ponies rest their feet.
Was tender. Travelling was bad. So I stopped there put my
pony up and fed them. Walked up to a cafe to get a cup of
coffee and a bite to eat. Was a rawhide town not much there
but saloons and gambling joints. I asked that girl waited on
me was this a pretty good town. She said at times the sheep
herders and a few miners from the Raton Pass country was
in town.

The first night I was there was so bad. All them miners
and thugs and pimps was gambling. The ones was gambling
was dancing with the girls. Long in the night was four
strange hard lookers show up in where they was gambling.
After a while one walked up to the dice table and another set
down to the poker table. The other two just stood around.
I kept an eye on them. You didn't know what would take
place. I figured they would hold the joint up. Everything went
off. Not much trouble that night. But the next night the same
four and two more walked in the same cave. Two went to

168 NEW MEXICO HISTORICAL REVIEW

gambling. The rest of them danced with the gals. Some, but
didn't stay in where the girls was long. Come back in the
saloon where they was gambling. Some time after midnight
a racket started in the dance hall. It was getting rough in
there. The pimps began to go in there and began to get up
from the tables. About that time some of the lights was shot
out. Some one said nobody make a move. You won't get hurt.
The place was held up and robbed. I backed against the wall
close to the door and seen one of the six men rake the money
in a saddle bag and they backed out the door. Then they was
in the dark.

I went down to the cafe to get a cup of coffee. A man come
in look like someone had worked him over with a bottle. That
girl brought me my coffee was you up there when it was
robbed. That was fun to me. I am used to that. I asked her
how long she been here. Several months. Me and my man
come here from Grants. How long was you in Grants? Two
years, she said. She said I have seen you in Grants. Or in
Bluewater, haven't I. Maybe I said. That girl said she was in
that place when the Mexican had trouble with that gal tried
to steal his money when he was in her room and you went
in there and I seen you shake her and her man started in and
you knocked him out the door. She said you like that Mexican.
Yes, I did. He worked for me two years.

I stayed around there a few more days. I decided to go
a little farther southeast. I pulled out one morning. Headed
to Tucumcari. I travelled one day. Came up on a cow camp
and stayed all night with a cow puncher. The next morning
this cowpuncher told me where I could run into an old trail
that went to one of the Bell camps. I made it just before sun-
down. That was a wild country. I had seen a little of every-
thing that day. I stayed all night there was two cowboys
there. We was eating supper I asked what cow camp this was.
They said the Bell camp. I asked them cowboys where does
this trail lead to? They said to the Bell headquarters. I pulled
out.

I hadn't been gone over two hours I saw a man cross the
trail ahead of me. I didn't know what he was up to. I never did
see him any more. I rode on down the trail. All of a sudden

WEST OF THE PECOS 169

my dun pony I was riding begin snorting and stepping high.
There were two panthers laying on a bluff. I didn't want to
kill one of them. Something else might bob up. The country
was full of outlaws. I went on down the trail. Just before I
got to the ranch I saw a man coming down a canyon. He was
a Bell cowboy. We rode on to the ranch. Got down and went
in the house.

The boss and two cow punchers was drinking coffee. Their
hair and beards were long. I got me a tin cup and poured
me a cup. I noticed they looked me over. I kept one eye on
them. When I walked in I knew I had seen one of them guys.
I figured out where. I seen him in Durango in 1908 at a wild
west show. But he didn't seem to recognize me. The boss
asked me do you want to work. I said maybe. Nobody asked
me my name and I didn't ask them theirs. I had been there
about ten days one night the boss said to me what are your
name? I said Steve. I had learned their names by this time.
That cowboy I knew when I first went in he said to me. I
believe I have seen you before. I said maybe. I never told
him where I seen him. The least you talk the better off you
are. That day and time.

I worked there nearly two years. I found out what I had
been looking for seven years. One morning I told the boss
I believe I would hunt a new range. I saddled up my dun pony
and packed the other one and rode off and led my pack pony.
There was a trail leading southeast and come into the old
Goodnight Trail and travelled down it to Fort Butler and
stayed over night there. And decided to hang around there
a few days but didn't stay there two days. I travelled down
the old Goodnight Trail and come up on a big sheep ranch.
Was one white man and four Mexican sheep herders. I stayed
all night. They had a big pot of brown beans cooked. One
Mexican warmed the beans and made some bread and made
some coffee and fried some venison. They treated me very
nice. They never asked me anything and I didn't tell them
anything.

I travelled down the trail to Fort Sumner. I put my ponies
in the wagon yard and looked the doby town over. It was full
of sheep herders and a few cow pokes. I went in a barber shop

170 NEW MEXICO HISTORICAL REVIEW

to get cleaned up. Thought I would make a honk a tonk and
look the gals over. I got cleaned up and walked out on the
dirt sidewalk about that time some body knocked a man out
the saloon door. It looked like Arizona to me. I walked up
there and walked in. I walked up to the bar and ordered a
drink. Hadn't drunk a drop in five years. I drank about half
of it first chance I got I poured the rest in the spittoon. Every-
body looked at me when I come in the door and begin to move
around. I stopped at the end of the bar close to the door. The
bartender said to me do you want another drink. No I said.
Some was gambling. One sidled up close to me and said to me
I will by you a drink. I said no thank you, I have the stomach
trouble. He said it will help you. I said maybe. I found out
later he was the guy that run the roullette wheel. I give him
a go to hell look. He didn't look bad, although he had his gun
on. I did too. The bar tender was a Mexican. He come over
to me. Said to me the law don't like for strangers to wear
guns in town. I said they don't. I said to myself the rest got
theirs on. I will let the law tell me, but he didn't.

I stayed around there several days. I was in that place
several times and go back and dance with the girls about half
of girls was Mexican girls. Some good looking. The landlady
the girls call her Aunt Kate she was from Clovis. Two or
three them Mexican pimps tried to frame me but I beat them
to the draw. I had seen several of them kind. By this time
spring was here and the grass was getting green.

One morning I saddled up and packed my pony and rode
out of Fort Sumner. About half way between Fort Sumner
and Melrose I stayed all night in a cow camp. Was lots of
sheep in that country. The cow men didn't like the sheep men
them days. At the camp was one cowboy there. That cowboy
told me if I want to work for Mr. Stocks are going to start
to work in a day or two. You hang around here tomorrow if
you want to. No, I believe I will pull out.

The ranch was in the direction I wanted to go. Was a hard
days ride. About sundown I rode up. One of the cowpunchers
said get down. It was the foreman. But I didn't know at the
time so I crawled off. He come out and went with me to put
my ponies in the corral and feed them. So we went back to

WEST OF THE PECOS 171

the bunk shack. The chuck wagon was sitting out there with
the sheet and bows on it and the chuck box was in the back.
Was five or six cowboys at the bunk shack. Wasn't long the
cook said come and get it. This guy said us go and eat. That
sounded good to me. After we eat this same man went with
me and got my bedroll and put it in the bunk shack. Some
played cards. I set in and listened at the bull. One or two
wasn't very friendly. They was pretty boys they thought.
They was from Texas. They hadn't been in New Mexico very
long. Hadn't been in a New Mexico town.

The foreman asked me if I wanted to work for the Jingle-
bob out fit. I will help you this cow work. The chuck wagon
pulled away from the Jinglebob headquarters on my birth-
day. We had a wild west show for several days after the
wagon left the Jinglebob headquarters. We pulled out down
the Pecos about fifty miles and worked back up the Pecos.
The wagon was on the work sixty days marking and branding
and held the steers and some fat cows. The chuck wagon
pulled into the headquarters for a day or so and then started
on the trail to Des Moines. We didn't have much trouble get-
ting there.

We turned the cattle over to the men from K. C. The sec-
ond day we headed back to the Jinglebob Ranch. Pulled into
the headquarters. The foreman paid some of the cowpunchers
off and the two Texas cowboys went back to Texas. They
didn't like New Mexico. One trip on the trail was enough for
them. They said this country was too wild for them. I stayed
two years on the Jinglebob ranch. At times it was rough on
the Pecos.

I had been on the Jinglebob about twenty months. Had
been to town one time. Two cowboys and myself asked the
foreman about us going to town and staying a few days. He
said we could. We well start the wagon in about two weeks.
So us boys went in to Fort Sumner. We was there about a
week. Them two boys was bad to get drunk. I hadn't never
been in town with them before. That was a bad town to get
drunk in. I told them boys they better settle down when they
was in the dance hall around them thugs and pimps. One
night in there one of the boys got into it with a pimp. He was

172 NEW MEXICO HISTORICAL REVIEW

a Mexican. He came after this boy with a knife. I knocked
him down. We fought our way out the door. Two got bad
wounded so that bunch was on our trail. So we rode out of
town. Went back to the ranch. And we started the cow work
when we finished the cow work I told the foreman I believe
I would quit a while. He paid me and said when you want to
work you have a job.

I saddled up and packed my pony and rode off. I went into
Clovis and stayed around there about a month. That wasn't
a Sunday School town. I was in a hotel and run into Slaughter
the one brand V. S. and he told me he needed some cowboys.
He was going to start the wagon in a few days. I said to
Slaughter. I will go and help you a while. Slaughter said my
chuck wagon will be in town in a few days and you can go
back with him. While I'm waiting here to go to the ranch I
heard lots of talk about the V. S. Some good some bad. The
foreman no good. That didn't worry me for I had seen several
them kind. The chuck wagon come in. I helped the freighter
load up the wagon and we left for the ranch on the way I
got the history of the V. S. He done the talking and I done
the listening. He didn't find out anything from we. I never
told him my name. Was leading my pony behind the wagon
and I was ridin on the wagon beside him on the spring seat.

We had seen wild things. I said I am going to kill the next
thing jumps up. We hadn't gone far a coyote jumped up I
pulled my gun and killed the wolf. He never said anything.
Looked at me. We arrived at the ranch late in the evening.
Was several cowboys there. They unhooked the mules from
the wagon. I went and untied my ponies from the wagon and
taken my bedroll off and went with the freighter to the cor-
ral. I unsaddled and put my ponies in the corral. He and I
went to the bunk shack.

Some of them buttons popped off. That didn't set so well
with me. I hadn't been used to slight remarks. I liked 2 or 3
of them cow pokes. I like some. I [they] didn't like me for I
didn't take a hand in playing poker with them. I was a new
man. I didn't like the foreman. He turned out just like that
man told me. It was several days before Mr. Slaughter come
out.

WEST OF THE PECOS 173

One night that same bunch was playing poker. I was out
of the bunk house. I overheard them discussing me. One said
he is a tenderfoot. I stepped inside with my gun in my hand
and shot through the roof. I said settle down nobody won't
get hurt. I said now you city cowboys, I don't want any more
slight remarks out of you all. About that time that smart
foreman come stepping high down. He said what going on
down here? I said let your city cow boys tell you. I pulled
my bedroll out the door and laid down. Kept one eye open.

The next day the foreman said to me I don't believe you
and the boys can get along. I told him I was going to stay
here until Slaughter get here. In a few days Mr. Slaughter
come in. I told him I don't think I will work for you. I can't
get along with some of your cow boys. He asked what the
trouble. I said we will let your foremen and the boys tell you.
He had the boss and all us cowboys come to the bunkhouse.
He asked his boss what was the trouble the other night. I said
to all of them youall tell it just like it was and tell it straight.
Told Mr. Slaughter I won't stay here and work might be
trouble. I cross on the East side of the Pecos then.

I went on the west of the Pecos in 1902 and come back on
the east side in 1918. I spent 16 years in New Mexico and
Arizona West of the Pecos. It wasn't long after I came back
on the east side of the Pecos I married a New Mexico girl. It
was rough on a woman to keep her on the cow ranches them
days. We toughed it out until our first baby was born. Her
health wasn't so good after that so I never did carry her back
to live on a ranch any more. I kept working on for about a
year. So in 1923 I gave up the wild country west of the Pecos
and the wild cows. Many times I look back over my life and
west of the Pecos.

The End

Jal, N. M.
Feb. 4, 1960
Dear Mr. Reeve :

I am droping you a few lines. How are you well I hope. Well Mr.
Reeve wife and I made all ok from up there but the snow and ice sure
was ruff going I shure haid the work to get everthing in shape for the
Boss, he con in a few days ago I am at home know. Reservation I got

174 NEW MEXICO HISTORICAL REVIEW

to thinking I got my knotes down and look them over I am sinding

you the name of them Indian.

* * *

Dear Mr Reeve

I look thew my notes I am sinding them to you my Love still stand out

for the mexican papeal, and the Indian Papeal for they was a true

friend of mine I haid Indian girls friend and mexican girls friend

mexican girl save my life on time, if I could see you I could tell you

lots about the Indian and the mexican papeal them days, they was a

true blue friend of mine I could carry a huard of cattle threw they

country iny time, and when I call on the Spanish papeal to help me

never turn me dawn.

I hope this find you well I have bin puney but feel better I will close as

ever your friend write me when you can

E. L. Stephens

Box 22

JalNM

Notes and Documents

February 17, 1961

Dr. John D. Greenleaf
Department of History
Mexico City College
Mexico, D. F.

Dear Dr. Greenleaf:

Having read your review of Our Spanish Southwest in the New
Mexico Historical Review, I am curious to learn whether an attempted
corrective measure has missed fire.

The printer was breaking in a new typesetter, who introduced a
new error in about one out of every three lines that he reset. Therefore,
I requested and read a second page proof, which also abounded in
"typos", and by that time the editor and I were growing weary so that
we were unable to detect all of them. After the printing, the editor em-
ployed a good proofreader, and she and I made a list of the "typos" from
which the publisher printed a sheet of errata with assurance that it
would be inserted in all copies.

Now I find that that insert is not appearing in books received
locally, and I am making inquiry as to whether it went out in review
copies. I judge from your review that it did not, and if not, you really
let me off kindly !

This is not an attempt to excuse a half dozen factual errors, which
I made myself. They will be corrected in the next printing.

Sincerely yours,
Lynn I. Perrigo
Head, Department of
History and Social Science
as

P. S. However, I do take issue with one of your criticisms. Chapters I,
XIII, and XIX, dealing with the Indians are not restricted to the
Navajo. And it is interesting how opinions differ. Another critic thought
that there was too much on the early period that it would be difficult
for a reader to plod through all those strange names and remote events !

L. P.

175

Book Review

Apache, Navaho, and Spaniard. By Jack D. Forbes. Norman,
1960. University of Oklahoma Press. Illustrations. Maps.
Bibliography. Index. Pp. xxvi, 303. $5.95.

From the coming of Spanish colonists to New Mexico
under Juan de Ofiate at the close of the 16th century until the
arrival of the Comanches in the early 18th century, the
Apaches and Navahos provided the chief threat to Spanish
occupation. In 1680 the Pueblo Indians rebelled and, aided by
these wild nomads, drove the Spaniards from New Mexico.
The survivors founded a new town, El Paso, at the ford of the
Rio Grande. It required nearly twenty years for the Spaniards
to restore their hegemony over the rebellious Pueblo tribes.

Apache, Navaho, and Spaniard covers this period, from
the coming of the Spaniards to their return to the Rio Grande
valley after the Pueblo Revolt. In his Introduction Professor
Forbes sketches the background of the southern Athapascans,
who had wandered far from the main body of their linguistic
family in northwestern Canada and Alaska.

Missionary eorts to convert the Apaches and Navahos,
although they occasionally appeared promising or fruitful, in
the long run made no impression. One of the most significant
results of the Spanish-Indian relationship in New Mexico
was the diffusion of the Spanish horse among enemy tribes
and in a wild state. The Spanish policy of capturing Apaches
and Navahos for sale as slaves in Chihuahua intensified the
conflict, and precluded the possibility of more than temporary
periods of peace.

Most of the previously-published accounts of the Apaches
and Navahos in the early Spanish period have been articles
or have had merely a secondary interest in these Indians.
Professor Forbes has told their story in detail, basing his
study on archival documents as well as selected secondary
sources.

University of Florida DONALD E. WORCESTER

176

V

^Mexico

Historical "Review

Palace of the Governors, Santa Fe

July, 1961

Editors
FRANK D. REEVE PAUL A. F. WALTER

Associates

PERCY M. BALDWIN GEORGE P. HAMMOND

FRANCE V. SCHOLES ELEANOR B. ADAMS

BRUCE T.ELLIS

VOL. XXXVI JULY, 1961 No. 3

CONTENTS

Page

Edmund G. Ross as Governor of New Mexico Territory:
a Reappraisal

Howard R. Lamar 179

The Presidio Supply Problem of New Mexico in the
Eighteenth Century

Max L. Moorhead 210

Frank Bond : Gentleman Sheepherder of Northern New Mexico,
1883-1915 (continued)

Frank H. Grubbs 230

Book Reviews 244

THE NEW MEXICO HISTORICAL REVIEW is published jointly by the
Historical Society of New Mexico and the University of New Mexico.
Subscription to the REVIEW is by membership in the Society open to all.
Dues, including subscription, $5.00 annually, in advance. Single num-
bers, except a few which have become scarce, are $1.00 each. For further
information regarding back files and other publications available, see
back cover.

Membership dues and other business communications should be ad-
dressed to the Historical Society of New Mexico, Box 1727, Santa Fe,
N. M. Manuscripts and editorial correspondence should be addressed
to Prof. Frank D. Reeve, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, N. M.

Entered as second-class matter at Santa Fe, New Mexico
PRINTED AT THE UNIVERSITY OP NEW MEXICO, ALBUQUERQUE

VOL. XXXVI JULY, 1961 No. 3

EDMUND G. ROSS AS GOVERNOR OF

NEW MEXICO TERRITORY

A REAPPRAISAL

By HOWARD R. LAMAR

ONE evening in the early spring of 1889, Edmund G. Ross
invited the Territorial Secretary of New Mexico, George
W. Lane, in for a smoke by a warm fire. As they sat in the
family living quarters of the Palace of the Governors and
talked over the day's events, it became obvious that the Gov-
ernor was troubled about something. Unable to keep still he
left his chair and paced the floor in silence. Finally he re-
marked : "I had hoped to induct New Mexico into Statehood." 1
In those few words Ross summed up all the frustrations he
had experienced in his four tempestuous years as the chief
executive of New Mexico Territory.

So briefly, or hostilely, has his career as governor been re-
ported both in the press of his own time and in the standard
histories of New Mexico and so little legislation is associated
with his name, that one learns with genuine surprise that he
had been even an advocate of statehood. Marion Dargan, in
his study of the New Mexican statehood struggles, remarks
that L. Bradford Prince was the only governor between 1851
and 1890 to work for admission into the Union. 2 It is ironic,

1. Lillian Ross Leis, "Memoirs of Edmund G. Ross." Typescript in the Edmund
Gibson Ross Papers in the Archives Division of the New Mexico State Records Center
(Santa Fe). The author is grateful to Dr. Myra Ellen Jenkins, Chief Archivist, for per-
mission to use the Ross Papers and for many valuable suggestions concerning: the writing
of this article.

177

178 NEW MEXICO HISTORICAL REVIEW

indeed, that Ross, who was by career a newspaper editor and
a devoted believer in the press as an instrument of truth,
should have been so consistently its victim throughout his
own public career.

Edmund G. Ross owes his place in American history and
a very respectable place it is to his dramatic and stubborn
refusal as a Kansas Senator to vote for Andrew Johnson's
impeachment in 1868. After that painful moment he was a
ruined man politically, excoriated by the national Republican
press as a traitor to his party and accused of corruption and
bribery. He was denounced even more by his constituents
back in Kansas, for they had directed him by letter and me-
morial to vote with the Radicals against Johnson. 3

This bitter experience forced Ross to return to the Demo-
cratic party, which he had left as early as 1844 in order to
satisfy his strong anti-slavery convictions. Belonging to the
minority party in Republican Kansas, it was impossible for
him to emerge from the political shadows again until the
Democrats returned to national power with Grover Cleve-
land's victory in 1884. The news that Cleveland had appointed
Ross governor of New Mexico Territory aroused much of the
old newspaper bitterness; and some of the senators, with
Ross' defection still vivid in their memories, were so deter-
mined to defeat his nomination that the Kansan had been de
facto governor for a year before the Senate confirmed his
appointment. 4

If Ross was the target of unfair national criticism and
calumny in 1868, he was equally the victim of a legend which
had grown up around him in the succeeding eighteen years.
Gradually realizing that his vote for Johnson had not been
the result of a corrupt bargain, the public had come instead

2. Marion Daman, "New Mexico's Figrht for Statehood. 1895-1912," New Mexico
Historical Review, XIV (January, 1939), p. 6.

3. This portion of Ross' career has been sympathetically covered in some detail in
Senator John F. Kennedy's Profiles in Courage (N.Y., 1956) ; see also "Edmund Gibson
Ross" in the Dictionary of American Biography, XVI, pp. 175-176. For Ross' own
account of the trial see his History of the Impeachment of Andrew Johnson, President
of the United States by the House of Representatives and his Trial by the Senate for
High Crimes and Misdemeanors in Office, 1868 (Santa Fe, 1896).

4. Ross was appointed May 27, 1885, and received Senate confirmation on April 29,
1886. Earl S. Pomeroy, The Territories and the United States, 1861-1890 (Philadelphia,
1947), p. 110.

GOVERNOR ROSS 179

to regard Ross as an honorable man but so stubborn, opinion-
ated, and idealistic, that he was difficult to work with. They
had also come to regard him as a reformer. And to complete
the stereotype although he was only fifty-nine years old
when he became governor of New Mexico the newspapers
persistently pictured him as an elderly man in broken health,
bowed by time and misfortune, more cantankerous and bitter
than wise. The Denver Opinion's description of him is fairly
typical of most papers: "an aged and obscure man with a
sallow, hungry countenance and thin faded hair." The Star
and Kansan called him, "that physically puny man." 5

These were the basic elements of a newspaper portrait of
Ross which was to be peddled daily during his governorship
(1885-1889) by the local press, and particularly by Ross'
political enemy, Colonel Max Frost, the strongminded, arro-
gant editor of the Santa Fe New Mexican. By far the most
powerful newspaper in the Territory, the New Mexican was
also the official spokesman for the local Republican party and
for the so-called "Santa Fe Ring." At that time the paper was
partly owned by ex-Senator Stephen W. Dorsey, of "Star
Route" Mail frauds notoriety. Dorsey was now engaged in
open-range ranching and was a business associate of the
Maxwell Land Grant Company, so that the New Mexican
naturally defended both these interests. Frost was also a
politician of no mean ability. He had served as United States
Land Register, Adjutant General of the Territorial Militia,
member of the Board of Immigration, and as secretary to the
New Mexico Territorial Cattleman's Association. A good
arranger and campaign manager, he was secretary of the
Republican Central Committee for a quarter of a century. 6

To Governor Ross and the reform element in the Cleveland
administration, Frost and the New Mexican were symbols of
nearly every evil they hoped to erase from New Mexico. Frost,
in turn, saw Ross as such a threat that he seized upon Ross'
reputation as a stubborn, cranky reformer, and so implanted
this caricature in the minds of his readers, that it persisted

5. Denver Opinion, July 18, 1885 ; The Star and Kansan, January 16, 1885. Clip-
pings in the Ross Papers.

6. Ralph E. Twitchell, Leading Facts of New Mexican History ( Cedar Rapids, Iowa,
1912), II, 497-498 ; also the Las Vegas Chronicle, Oct. 25, 1886.

180 NEW MEXICO HISTORICAL REVIEW

throughout the Governor's lifetime and has been perpetuated
by such New Mexico historians as Twitchell and Prince.

If one might cite an example of the caricature : perhaps
Frost's most brilliant reportorial stroke was his interpreta-
tion of Ross' inauguration. When the new governor and his
family came to Santa Fe on the evening of May 26, 1885, he
announced to his predecessor, Lionel A. Sheldon, that he
wished to avoid the parties and fanfare which usually sur-
rounded the inaugural ceremony. While this plan fitted with
Ross' own natural modesty, it also allowed his wife a firm
temperance advocate to escape the embarrassment of hold-
ing a teetotaling reception in convivial Santa Fe. Various
members of Ross' party suggested that since he was being
hailed as a reformer, he should take office at dawn, for it was a
New Mexican Indian legend that some day Montezuma would
return at that hour to deliver them from bondage. Governor
Sheldon acquiesced; and on June 15, just as the sun broke
over the blue Sangre de Cristo range, the simple oath-taking
ceremony occurred at the Palace. Mrs. Sheldon thought this
was all very clever, and in a gay mood broke out a new hat
for the occasion. 7 Somehow the news of the ceremony reached
nearby Fort Marcy, where the officers fired off an early morn-
ing salute to honor Ross. The thunder of cannon sent the
sleeping inhabitants tumbling out of doors to see what could
be the matter.

Frost, in reporting this event, christened the Governor
"Montezuma" Ross ; and from that day on the nickname "Old
Monte" stuck. In subsequent months he was to picture Ross
as a pompous avenging angel bringing the unneeded torch of
reform to New Mexico. And on each occasion he humorously
and brilliantly twisted Ross' identification with Montezuma
into a symbol of "rule or ruin" aggression. 8

A second image soon to be portrayed by Frost and the New
Mexican and many other papers as well, was that of Ross as
a Kansas "interloper," a sort of latter-day John Brown who
could not possibly understand the internal needs and unique

7. L. Bradford Prince, A Concise History of New Mexico (Cedar Rapids, Iowa,
1912), pp. 205-206 ; Twitchell, p. 496 ff. ; Leis, "Memoirs of Ross."

8. Santa Fe New Mexican, June 15, 1885.

GOVERNOR ROSS 181

Spanish-American character of New Mexico. Thus Ross was
cast in the perennially unpopular role of "non-resident fed-
eral appointee" of the genus "carpetbagger." 9 The effect of
this image is seen when some two years later the citizens of a
section of Grant County, furious with Ross for refusing to
create a new county for them, burned him in effigy and de-
nounced "Monte Ross and his rascally set of Kansas plunder-
ers." Towards the end of his term The Black Range cried that
the Territory had had enough of "Jay Hawker Ross" and
carpetbagger Democrats. 10

However, Ross did not spring from the gloom of retire-
ment in Kansas to the limelight of political prominence by
way of an overnight trip on the Atchison, Topeka, and Santa
Fe. He had actually come to New Mexico in 1882, some three
years before he became governor. 11 His decision to move was
undoubtedly prompted by his having suffered a decisive defeat
as a candidate for the governorship of Kansas in 1880.

He deliberately chose to settle in the booming town of
Albuquerque, for with the completion of the Santa Fe line
to that point, it had become an important business, freighting,
and outfitting center for the mining camps in the Cerrillos
and Black Range districts as well as for the Army posts and
Indian reservations to the south and west. Although Ross
ostensibly came to Albuquerque as a newspaper man, working
for the Albuquerque Morning Journal, he had seen enough of
the Kansas frontier to know that here was a chance to make
a modest fortune by "growing up" with a still newer West.
Full of hope for the future, he wrote his wife in February,
1883, that he was in on a big mining venture which looked so
good that he had quit the newspaper and was busily studying
Spanish deeds and grants to the property. 12

Nor did Ross pick Albuquerque out of thin air. He was in
correspondence with his brother-in-law, H.C. Bennett, who
had settled in Silver City and undoubtedly praised the mining
future of the region. 13 Two of Ross' former Kansas friends

9. Ibid., June 1 to September 1, 1886 ; January 1 to March 30, 1887, passim.

10. Deming Headlight, March 4, 1887 ; The Black Range, January 28, 1889.

11. Twitchell, II, 496-497n.

12. E. G. Ross to Fanny Lathrop Ross, Albuquerque, February 6, 1883. Ross Papers.

13. Leis, "Memoirs of Ross" ; National Cyclopaedia of Biography, XXV, 65-66.

182 NEW MEXICO HISTORICAL REVIEW

had settled in Albuquerque. Elias Sleeper Stover, and ex-lieu-
tenant governor of Kansas, had moved to Albuquerque some
years before and had founded the large wholesale grocery
concern, Stover, Crary, and Company. 14 A former Free-
Soiler, and a Civil War veteran of fifty-one engagements,
Stover was destined by nature and background to become
Ross' friend. It is not surprising to find that the two men soon
were closely allied in ambitious projects to advance their own
and Albuquerque's future. Having arrived in the "Duke City"
before the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe, Stover, in associa-
tion with Franz Huning and William C. Hazeldine, had
bought up the land between the Barelas Road and the pro-
posed depot and laid out the "new town." In this way they
capitalized quite handsomely on the coming of the railroad.
Stover was also one of the founders of the First National
Bank of Albuquerque. As a man with money to invest, he was
naturally interested in projects to build local spur lines and
in mining ventures. Upon Ross* arrival he invited him to
participate in several of his schemes. 15

Ross' other Kansas acquaintance was W. S. Burke, editor
of the Albuquerque Morning Journal. A Civil War veteran,
he had worked on papers in Iowa and Kansas before coming
to Albuquerque in 1881. 16 Although the Journal was Republi-
can in tone, Burke asked Ross to join his staff and the latter
appears to have done much editorial writing for it. Soon, he
and Burke were as much of a team as Ross and Stover were.
When the Albuquerque, Copper City, and Colorado Railroad
Company was organized in 1883, Burke and Ross appeared as
two of the directors. 17

Ross was of immediate use to the business and railroad
men of Albuquerque both as a publicist of ability and as a
former United States Senator. In the latter capacity he had

14. Bernice Ann Rebord, A Social History of Albuquerque, 1880-1885. Unpublished
Master's Thesis (Department of History, University of New Mexico, 1947), p. 11.

15. Victor Westphall, History of Albuquerque, 1870-1880. Unpublished Master's
Thesis (Department of History, University of New Mexico, 1947), p. 87; also papers
and documents entitled "Railroads" in the Ross Papers ; Twitchell, V, 265.

16. Archie M. McDowell, The Opposition to Statehood Within the Territory of New
Mexico, 1888-1903. Unpublished Master's Thesis (Department of History, University of
New Mexico, 1939), p. 27.

17. Rebord, Social History of Albuquerque, pp. i-vi.

GOVERNOR ROSS 183

access to key men in Washington and could come and go on
the floor of the Senate. Nearly a year before the Democrats
came into power, Ross went to Washington where he pressed
for a grant of land for the Atlantic and Pacific Railroad
(which line had now been absorbed by the Santa Fe) . At the
same time, he and various other Albuquerque business men
had planned to build a veritable spiderweb of narrow gauge
railroads to connect Albuquerque with the new mining
camps. 18 The Morning Journal began to praise the narrow
gauge scheme, and Ross himself was listed as the vice presi-
dent and financial agent of the narrow gauge companies. At
one time the companies had no less than five railroads under
consideration. 19

It would be misleading to attribute too many Beardian
economic impulses to Ross and his associates. While they were
determined to help forge New Mexico's railroad future, they
were equally determined to change New Mexico's cultural
history. Burke, Stover, and Ross were concerned that after
nearly forty years of American rule the Territory still had
no public school system. They were appalled that much of
the population still spoke only Spanish. Burke lamented that
not one in ten justices of the peace had a territorial code of
laws in his office, or that if he did, he did not know how to
read them. 20 Revealing their abolitionist backgrounds they
saw the public school and education as the essential instru-
ment necessary to "Americanize" and "democratize" New
Mexico. 21

Some two years before he became governor, Ross in co-
operation with Burke, wrote a bill "for the establishment of
a public school system in the Territories," which they sent to
Senator George F. Edmunds. At the time Edmunds was bus-
ily pushing anti-Mormon legislation through Congress. Hop-
ing to enlist his interest in New Mexico's plight, Burke sug-

18. W. S. Burke to Ross, January 3, 1884 ; also MS letter Burke? to Ross?, January
1, 1884 in "Letters Received, 1884" in Ross Papers.

19. Albuquerque Morning Journal, August (n.d.), 1883; clipping in Ross Papers.
See also pamphlet The New Mexico System of Narrow Gauge Railroads (N.Y., 1883) in
Ross Papers. Rebord, Social History of Albuquerque, p. 13.

20. Albuquerque Morning Journal, July 23, 1883.

21. W. S. Burke to Ross, January 8, 1884. Ross Papers.

184 NEW MEXICO HISTORICAL REVIEW

gested that the Catholic Church played the same role in resist-
ing American social and political institutions in New Mexico
that the Mormon Church did in Utah. "We can never have
public schools in the world, in this priest-ridden Territory,
unless Congress takes the matter in hand, and now while the
fight against Mormonism is going on is the very time to move
in the matter." 22 In a covering letter to Edmunds he declared
with real abolitionist fervor :

The enemy to progress and civilization that we have to fight
in New Mexico, is not polygamy, but Romanism and between
this and the Utah blight there is but little room to choose. You
are, of course, aware of the miserable educational system or
more properly, absence of all system which is maintained in
this Territory. We are absolutely without any system of public
education whatever in the sense in which the term is used in
the United States. 23

Burke's solution was to take education "out of the hands
of the legislature and county officers altogether" and to permit
only the federal officers to run the system. Their duties in-
cluded, incidentally, the power to levy school taxes.

Burke's bill and others like it were introduced but were
never passed. It is useful however, as a mirror of Ross' and
Burke's attitude towards New Mexico, and it suggests that
just as the Radicals had tried to reconstruct the post-Civil
War South, they were willing to use federal law to "recon-
struct" New Mexico. When his bill died in Committee, Burke
continued the educational struggle by becoming the first
Superintendent of Public Instruction of Bernalillo County. 24
Some years later, Ross' other Kansas friend, Elias Stover, was
to become the first President of the University of New
Mexico. 25

The goals of the newcomers to Albuquerque did not stop
with matters of economic and cultural progress. Surrounding

22. W. S. Burke to George F. Edmunds, December 21, 1883. Ross Papers.
28. Ibid.

24. Burke was aided in his fight for local schools by Ross' having persuaded Congress
to donate certain public lands remaining in the Albuquerque town grant for educational
purposes. See MS "Land Grant for Town of Albuquerque" in Ross Papers.

25. TwitcheU, V, 177.

GOVERNOR ROSS 185

Ross were intelligent and ambitious young lawyers and mer-
chants of both parties who were chafing under the rule of that
peculiar organization called the Santa Fe Ring. Whether Re-
publican or Democrat they discovered that no economic or
political move could be accomplished without first consulting
the powers at Santa Fe. The young Albuquerqueans, in alli-
ance with leaders from southern and eastern portions of the
territory, had begun to rebel as early as 1882. In 1884 they
had sent contesting members to the Assembly of 1884, and
had tried unsuccessfully to get the capitol removed from the
City of the Holy Faith to Albuquerque. 26 Embittered by the
questionable tactics which the Santa Feans used to retain
the seat of government, the fight broadened into a war be-
tween ring and anti-ring Republicans. The former were ably
represented by Max Frost, William Breeden, L. Bradford
Prince, and Thomas B. Catron, while the insurgents were
led by a brace of colorful colonels : J. Francisco Chavez and
William F. Rynerson. 27 The battle continued into the fall when
the Santa Feans nominated Prince as their candidate for
delegate while the anti-ring forces chose Rynerson to run on
an independent ticket. 28

Both Burke and Ross were delighted at the turn of politi-
cal events. To one it offered the chance of a reformed Repub-
lican party, and to the other a chance for the Democrats to
win the delegateship in a three man race. The Morning Jour-
nal, for whom it must be remembered Ross worked, began
to roast the Santa Fe ring at every opportunity. And since
frontier editors habitually most enjoyed attacking other fron-
tier editors, Burke and Ross never failed to attack Max Frost
as the chief villain of that organization. In the spring of
1884, the Journal reported every rebellious act of the Chavez-
Rynerson forces with the thoroughness of a New York Times
but the partisanship of the Daily Worker. The tone of the
articles is amply illustrated by a typical aside in a report of a
meeting of the Republican Territorial Convention :

26. Ibid., II, 493-494 ; also G. P. Hammond and T. C. Donnelly, The Story of New
Mexico: Its History and Government (Albuquerque, 1936), p. 135.

27. Twitchell, II, 493.

28. For an excellent summary of the Republican split in 1884, see The Sante Fe
Weekly New Mexican, September 1, 1884. (Bancroft).

186 NEW MEXICO HISTORICAL REVIEW

The most intense feeling of hatred against Max Frost has
come to light. It does not seem to be from any one section, but
is joined in by both North and South counties. 29

Seeing a chance to bring about new political alignments,
Ross threw himself into the Democratic delegate and national
campaign of 1884 with real vigor. He supported the local
Democracy's choice for delegate: the smiling, urbane Taos
merchant and land owner, Antonio Joseph. He was also glad
to see Colonel J.F. Chavez throw his support to Joseph at
the last moment when it became apparent that Rynerson could
not win. 30

The better Ross came to know his own party members in
New Mexico, however, the more disturbed he became. The
chairman of the Democratic Party's central committee in
the Territory, C. H. Gildersleeve, had bought that position
for mercenary reasons, was a speculator in land grants, and
was closely tied to the Santa Fe ring by friendship and busi-
ness connections. It was apparent that he would never declare
for reform. Then Ross discovered that Antonio Joseph had
crossed party lines on local issues so often that he was actually
a political chameleon. Some years later Ross confided his
feelings to a remarkably frank manuscript in which he called
Gildersleeve "the main Democratic manipulator for the Santa
Fe Ring and the most unscrupulous of all that combination."
Joseph was described in this document as "Gildersleeve's
henchman" who had actually been elected to Congress by a
split in the Republican party "engineered" by the Ring. 31

In Ross' eyes other Democratic leaders of superior talents
also revealed a distressing ambivalence when it came to party
loyalty. The extremely capable Judge Henry L. Waldo called
himself a Democrat but was actually a member of the original
Santa Fe ring and a law partner of the chairman of the terri-
torial Republican Party. 32 Another Democrat whose ability
Ross wanted to use was William T. Thornton. But the embar-

29. Albuquerque Morning Journal, May 4, 1884.

30. "The Gildersleeve, Springer, Joseph Combination." Undated manuscript in the
Ross Papers. See also Napoleon B. Laughlin to Ross, April (n.d.) 1886.

31. "The Gildersleeve, Springer, Joseph Combination" ; McDowell, The Opposition
to Statehood, p. 4.

32. "The Gildersleeve, Springer, Joseph Combination."

GOVERNOR ROSS 187

rassing difficulty here was that Thornton was actually a law
partner of Thomas Benton Catron, whom many thought was
with Stephen B. Elkins the brains behind the Santa Fe
Ring. Here Ross had discovered, incidentally, why the Santa
Fe Ring was so successful and yet such an enigma : it con-
sisted of the leaders of both parties, and of many rings within
the larger one. To use Ross' own words, each combination
had, for example, a Republican and a Democratic lawyer
within its ranks "for prudential reasons so that whichever
side might come uppermost, the dominant party was
represented." 33

All the evils that had presumably been thrown out of the
front door could march back through the rear entrance if
Ross and the reform Democrats both in New Mexico and
Washington were not careful. Determined to check Gilder-
sleeve wherever he could, Ross became a candidate for the
governorship upon the news of Cleveland's election. He was
no reluctant Cincinnatus dragged from rural Kansas, but
an active lobbyist in his own cause. He wrote Cleveland ask-
ing for the position of governor, got Burke as a Republican
editor to endorse his appointment, and persuaded Albuquer-
que friends to protest the possible appointment of L. S. Trim-
ble to the position. His friend, S. M. Ashenfelter, kept up an
editorial crusade to get rid of Gildersleeve and all rings. Ross
himself went to Washington where he found Joseph and
Gildersleeve lobbying for other candidates. Much to the sur-
prise of the New Mexican press, and probably to the great
surprise and disappointment of Gildersleeve, Ross had soon
edged out the other candidates. 34 He received the appoint-
ment in May, 1885.

To secure office then, Ross had to fight both the regular
Republican and Democratic machines if the informal, log-
rolling factions that went under those names in New Mexico

33. Ross to John O'Grady (copy), March 26, 1887; William A. Keleher, The Fabu-
lous Frontier (Santa Fe, 1945), p. 104n.

34. Ross to Grover Cleveland (copy) Washington, April 30, 1885; W. S. Burke to
Grover Cleveland, May 20, 1885 ; manuscript "Petition" of Albuquerque citizens, 1885.
Ross Papers.

Southwest Sentinel, March 7 and 21, 1885.

The Las Vegas Daily Optic, April 24, 1885, thought that William T. Thornton had
the best chance of becoming governor and that Ross was only third in line.

188 NEW MEXICO HISTORICAL REVIEW

can be called that. His correspondence reveals particularly
the complexity and bitterness of the intra-party fight. Early
in March, 1885, W. B. Childers, an Albuquerque lawyer,
warned him that Thornton, while appearing friendly to Ross*
cause, was actually seeking the governorship for himself. 35
Three weeks later, George W. Fox wrote from Socorro that
Delegate Joseph was "against" him. 36 A year later, while
still awaiting Senate confirmation, Ross learned through Sen-
ator Manderson of Kansas that his own party chairman, Gil-
dersleeve, had preferred some ten charges against Ross in a
secret letter to the Senate Committee on Territories. Among
the charges was the accusation that Ross, by pretending to
be "Montezuma" on inauguration day, had mocked the reli-
gion of the local Indians and had so shocked their sensibilities
that it had made Indian-white relations in New Mexico im-
measurably more difficult. 37

What a contrast is this intricate struggle to the Denver
newspaper's halcyon description of Ross as an obscure old
man who first learned that he was Governor while working
in the typesetting room, where, as the news of his appoint-
ment spread, an amazed family and a disbelieving set of
friends gathered about him to offer congratulations. 38

After such complicated preliminaries, it still remains to
be seen what sort of administration Governor Ross conducted.
Ralph E. Twitchell, no friend of the Kansan, termed it a fi-
asco. Under Ross, he wrote, "Cleveland's officials organized an
assault upon the titles of lands in New Mexico . . . [which
for] virulence of action and incapacity of management has
never found a parallel in the history of the United States." 39
L. Bradford Prince, Ross' successor in office wrote: "Abso-
lutely honest and well meaning but proud of his firmness, he
[Ross] antagonized his own party as well as the Republican

85. W. B. Childers to Ross, March 3, 1885. Ross Papers.

86. George W. Fox to Ross, March 21, 1885. Ross Papers.

37. Senators M. C. Butler and Charles F. Manderson to Ross (n.d.) in "Letters
Received, March to April, 1886," Ross Papers. See also Edward L. Bartlett to Ross, April
20, 1886; and Napoleon B. Laughlin to Ross, April (n.d.) 1886.

88. Denver Opinion, July 18, 1885.

89. Twitchell, II, p. 498.

GOVERNOR ROSS 189

legislature, and was soon powerless to accomplish anything."
Ross' administration, he concluded, was "quite barren of
result." 40 Charles Coan and Helen Haines, each with a one
sentence reference to Ross, and Maurice Fulton and Paul
Horgan by their complete silence in New Mexico's Own
Chronicle, would seem to concur. 41

Besides the difficulties with his local party Ross was ham-
pered at the outset by an uncongenial set of federal officers
with whom to work. While Secretary Lane and Attorney Gen-
eral Smith cooperated with Ross, and the venerable Surveyor
General, George W. Julian, became Ross' most trusted politi-
cal friend, they were only the "reform" appointees. 24 Political
realities demanded that Congressman William M. Springer,
chairman of the House Committee on Territories, Delegate
Joseph, and Gildersleeve control most of the patronage. The
new chief justice, William A. Vincent, consequently proved
to be a friend of Congressman Springer and ex-Senator Dor-
sey, and eventually a willing advocate of the Santa Fe Ring. 43
The new United States marshal, Romulo Martinez, was so
deeply involved in a fight over the legal ownership of the
Canon del Agua Grant that his worth seemed questionable to
Ross. 44 While Ross did work with Judge Elisha V. Long and
Judge Henderson, he distrusted Reuben A. Reeves. 45 It was
in Reeves' court that many of Ross' executive acts were de-
clared invalid. 46

Although the Delegate Antonio Joseph was not technically
a federal official in the sense that the judges and Ross were,
much of Ross' program depended upon Congressional legis-

40. Prince, Concise History, pp. 205-206.

41. Charles F. Coan, A History of New Mexico (Chicago, 1925), p. 407.
Helen Haines, History of New Mexico (N.Y., 1891), p. 254.

Maurice G. Fulton and Paul Horgan, New Mexico's Own Chronicle (Dallas, 1937).

42. Leis, "Memoirs of Ross."

43. Ross had not been in office a full three months when it was disclosed that
Vincent had so compromised himself in rulings on land cases involving his friend
Senator Dorsey that Cleveland removed him. Instead of leaving the territory, however,
Vincent stayed on to become a lawyer for the very interests Ross was fighting.

"The Gildersleeve, Springer, Joseph Combination" ; see also Arie W. Poldervaart,
Black-Robed Justice (Santa Fe, 1948), p. 135.

44. "The Gildersleeve, Springer, Joseph Combination."

45. Ross to Van H. Manning, Santa Fe, January 15, 1886, describes the subtle
pressures of land-grant interests on the federal judges. Ross papers.

46. Rio Grande Republican, January 22, 1887. (Bancroft).

190 NEW MEXICO HISTORICAL REVIEW

lation and support from Washington. While he and Joseph
maintained the most cordial public relations, and their cor-
respondence was Chesterfieldian in its politeness and urban-
ity, Joseph either by disinterest or subtle opposition often
defeated some of Ross' most treasured goals. Ross himself
appeared frequently in Washington during his term of office
to lobby for certain causes in which Joseph had no interest.
Isolated from much of his own party and many of the
local officials, it was but natural that Ross should turn to a
man with views about New Mexico that were almost identical
to his own. This was Surveyor General George W. Julian.
Like the governor, Julian had a national reputation as a fear-
less and incorruptible man, and as a public lands expert as
well. 47 Cleveland had appointed the Hoosier statesman in the
hope that he could solve the labyrinthine tangle that en-
meshed the Spanish and Mexican land grants in New Mexico.
Constantly encouraged by letters and notes from Secretary
of the Interior Lamar and Land Commissioner Sparks to con-
tinue the good work of "reformation and restoration," the
two men struggled to settle the land grants once and for all. 48
Unfortunately Julian took the view that truly Draconian
measures must be employed. After casting doubt on all the
decisions of his predecessors in the Surveyor General's office,
he announced that ninety per cent of all the land entries in
the territory were fraudulent. 49 While this statistic was prob-
ably correct, it also struck at every citizen of means in New
Mexico and at the livelihood of the entire legal profession
there. Much of the intense bitterness over Ross' administra-
tion was actually caused by Julian's ruthless scrutiny of land
records and his scathing reports to Washington. Julian's find-
ings led to the arrest of former Land Register Max Frost on
charges of fraudulent land entry and his conviction in a trial

47. "George W. Julian," in the Dictionary of American Biography, X, 245-246.

48. L.Q.C. Lamar to Ross, September 23, 1885 ; A. J. Sparks to Ross, November 7,
1887. In acknowledging Ross' Annual Report, Sparks wrote "In the name of the home-
seekers I thank you. Let the good work go on. The Land "grabbing" rascals will die
hard, but as sure as God is just we'll beat them." Ross Papers.

49. See a review and comments on Julian's assertion in the Deming Headlight, Sep-
tember 19, 1886. Ross upheld Julian's "90%" figure in his 1887 message to the Assembly.
For comments on his stand, see the Rio Grande Republican, January 1, 1887.

GOVERNOR ROSS 191

before Judge Long. 50 Julian also summarized his investiga-
tions in a blunt article for the North American Review in
which he fiercely denounced ex-Senator Dorsey, and called
Gildersleeve a politician "for revenue only." 51 The hornet's
nest had been stirred ; and the effects soon began to appear.
Senator Preston B. Plumb of Kansas warned Ross that letters
were pouring into Washington complaining that Julian's
methods had brought all business in New Mexico to a stand-
still, since no one was sure of title to property. 52 In a slap at
Julian and the Cleveland administration, the 1886 Demo-
cratic Territorial Convention unanimously adopted a resolu-
tion to play down land frauds, and Delegate Joseph success-
fully ran for re-election on such a ticket. 53 Julian was accurate
in his charges, and undoubtedly had the future good of New
Mexico at heart, but his public diatribes only increased the
difficulties under which Ross labored.

While being so closely identified with Julian, Ross also
attracted criticism by appointing members of his family to
office. One of his sons functioned as his personal secretary
while another worked for Julian. His son-in-law, Thomas P.
Gable, became warden, while he chose his nephew by mar-
riage, S. M. Ashenfelter, as district attorney for the third
district court. Later he replaced Gable with still another
relative, H.C. Bennett, his brother-in-law.

Within his own executive branch Ross faced a complicated
problem: somehow, he had to oust Republican appointees
from important territorial (as opposed to federal) offices
such as those of treasurer, attorney general and district attor-
ney before he could put a Democratic administration into
gear. A territorial court ruling of 1880, however, declared
that the incumbents of territorial office could hold their posi-
tions for two years from time of appointment, or until the

50. Twitchell, II, 498n.

51. George W. Julian, "Land Stealing in New Mexico," North American Review
(July 1, 1887), pp. 27-30. See also Harold H. Dunham, Government Handout: A Study
in the Administration of the Public Lands (New York, 1941), p. 180 ff.

52. Preston B. Plumb to Ross, July 9, 1886. Ross Papers.

A typical New Mexican reacton to Julian's charges may be found in the Rio Grande
Republican, July 16, 1887.

53. Julian, "Land Stealing in New Mexico," pp. 28-29.

192 NEW MEXICO HISTORICAL REVIEW

biennial legislature should again meet and confirm their suc-
cessors. Governor Sheldon had shrewdly reappointed all these
officials just before leaving office, and since the legislature did
not meet again until the winter of 1886-87 it meant that Ross
would normally have to wait over a year to replace these men.
Like the man he had refused to impeach in 1868, Ross himself
was now faced with a local "tenure of office act" which had
been designed to curb the governor's power. By dint of per-
suasion Ross secured two resignations, but his chief stum-
bling blocks were Colonel William Breeden, the territorial
attorney general, and Antonio Ortiz y Salazar, the territorial
treasurer. Breeden was also the chairman of the Republican
party and further, under Governor Sheldon's lax hand, had
become virtually the acting governor of New Mexico. 54 Self-
confident, opinionated, a good fighter and a good hater, he
obstructed Ross' every move during the latter's first year in
office.

Sorely troubled by the continued presence of these Repub-
lican officers, Ross badgered the United States Attorney Gen-
eral A. H. Garland for legal opinions as to how he could re-
move them. 55

It is very important to the success of my administration
that I should remove these officials, if I have the power, and
not remain responsible for their continuance in office. . . .

The conditions here are peculiar, and of such a character
that I cannot afford to make a mistake by allowing myself to
be hurried beyond my judgment. To attempt these removals and
be beaten in the Courts, although the intelligent Republican
sentiment might be with me, would be an almost fatal mistake,
while a successful attempt at removal would at once create a
complete political revolution, so prone is the great mass of the
people here, the native element, to go with the winning party in
a controversy.

Washington was of little help in this matter, so Ross fi-
nally decided that he must act regardless of the consequences.
After waiting some six months he asked the resignation of

54. Ross to Attorney General A. H. Garland, Santa Fe, August 24, 1885 ; see also
Ross to Van H. Manning, Santa Fe, January 15, 1886. Ross Papers.
56. Ross to Garland, August 24, 1885.

GOVERNOR ROSS 193

E. C. Wade as district attorney of the third judicial district.
Wade refused to resign and Judge Reeves upheld Wade's con-
tention. 56 Defeated in the courts, Ross tried another tack with
Colonel Breeden. By November, 1885, he felt that he had
enough evidence of misconduct in office to suspend Breeden.
Using the trusted medium of the press, he fired that obstrep-
erous official in a broadside proclamation the language of
which electrified the territory : 57

As to the "cause" for your suspension . . . you were sus-
pended for drunkenness, licentiousness, gambling, and misfeas-
ance, malfeasance and nonfeasance in office; crimes which
ought not be tolerated in a public official.

In replacing Breeden Ross attempted to make peace with
some of the factions in his own party. He approached his for-
mer competitor for the governorship, W. T. Thornton, with
the proposal that if Thornton would end his law partnership
with T. B. Catron, Ross would make him attorney general.
Thornton refused to accept the conditions, and Ross appointed
Napoleon B. Laughlin in his stead. 58 At the same time Ross
supported another competitor for the governorship, Romulo
Martinez, for the marshalship. 59 These efforts at cooperation
with the other wings of the Democratic party appeared to
have had little practical effect, however.

Ross waited until July, 1886, to remove Ortiz y Salazar,
the territorial treasurer. Again he used the method of public
proclamation. Charging Ortiz y Salazar with having specu-
lated in territorial warrants and with mismanagement of
funds designed for building the territorial penitentiary, he
removed him and appointed Bernard Seligman in his place. 60

Knowing that the legislature might not confirm his new
choices, Ross tried to get Congress to pass a bill reapportion-

56. Ross to E. C. Wade, October 22, 1885.

57. Ross to William Breeden, Santa Fe, November 13, 1885 ; see also printed
"Broadside" published November 24, 1885. Ross Papers.

58. Ross to Van H. Manning;, Santa Fe, January 15, 1886. Ross Papers.

59. Ross to Senator John J. Ingalls, June 3, 1886, in which Ross urged that Judges
Long and Henderson, and Attorney General Smith be continued in office.

60. See Public Letter of Ross to Ortfz y Salazar, July 28, 1886. Ross Papers. The
Las Vegas Chronicle, August 18, 1886, contains an account of the Ross-Salazar fight.
(Bancroft).

194 NEW MEXICO HISTORICAL REVIEW

ing the gerrymandered legislative New Mexican districts so
that a more amenable body might be elected to the 1886-87
session. 61 With opposition from Gildersleeve at home and with
luke-warm support from Joseph, this plan failed. Having
tangled with the courts, Ross' "interference" with the legis-
lative branch naturally embittered his relations with the
members of the 27th Assembly. They convened in 1887 ready
with mailed fist to do battle with the Kansas interloper. Al-
though the Republicans had only a slight majority in either
House, they were so tightly and brilliantly controlled by a
caucus system set up and run by Colonel Chavez that Ross
could never break the phalanx. 62 And to hamper Ross still
further, in the fall of 1886 the lawyers of New Mexico had
formed a Bar Association with none other than ex-Judge
William Vincent as its president. Whenever the legislature
considered a bill, it went to the Bar Association for approval
first ; and if it did not approve, the bill went no further. 63 This
was even more the case in 1889 when the Bar virtually wrote
and introduced every act passed.

The complicated infighting which characterized Ross' re-
lations with the 27th legislature need not be detailed here.
Suffice it to say that he vetoed some twenty-five percent of
the bills passed by the Assembly, and it, in retaliation, em-
barrassed him at every turn. Ross, for example, was soon at
loggerheads with the solons over his direction of the new peni-
tentiary. 64 In seeking someone he could trust, Ross quite un-
wisely appointed his son-in-law, Thomas P. Gable as Warden.
The newspapers quickly filled with innuendoes about the

61. Antonio Joseph to Ross, May 31, 1886 ; Shelby M. Cullom to Ross, June 3, 1886 ;
Benjamin Harrison to Ross, June 7, 1886. In his letter Harrison indicated that he dis-
approved of the reappointment scheme as federal interference with local government.
Ross Papers.

62. Ross to L. Q. C. Lamar, January 26, 1887.

Joseph had warned Ross in 1886 that he must get Frank Manzanares to persuade
Don Candelario Garcia to vote Democratic in order to control the Council. Garcia, who
posed as an "independent" in a council divided into six Republicans and five Democrats,
finally found the opposition more attractive. Joseph to Ross, Ojo Caliente, November
24. 1886.

A good analysis of the makeup of the 27th Assembly may be found in the Deming
Headlight, January 2, 1887.

68. Prince, Concise History, p. 206.

64. See references to the penitentiary fight in the Santa Fe New Mexican, February
1 to March 80, paesim; see also "Letters Received, January-February-March, 1887" in
Ross Papers.

GOVERNOR ROSS 195

"Gable-Ross syndicate," nepotism, and the like. The pettiness
of the conflict is revealed by Gildersleeve's writing a letter to
the Secretary of the Interior accusing Ross of stealing stone
from the penitentiary for his own use. 66 And as Ross had
feared, the Assembly declined to confirm Seligman as treas-
urer, to seat Henry L. Warren as attorney general (N. B.
Laughlin had declined the appointment) or to accept two new
appointees for positions of district attorney. 67 Finally, the
Assembly defeated a good public school bill which had been
backed by Ross. 68

Despite the actual defeat of every item of his program,
Ross' fighting spirit was never stronger. It was now that he
"rejoiced in opposition," to use Prince's phrase. In a letter to
John O'Grady, a newspaper friend in St. Louis, he admitted
that the legislature might make him seem such a terrible
executive that Cleveland would ask for his resignation. If
that happened, he predicted they would then move against
Julian and Attorney General Smith. He also confessed that
his enemies had large newspaper backing. But he was opti-
mistic about the long-range effects : 69

This crusade is tending to a reorganization of party lines
here. All fair-minded, law abiding people, Republicans as well
as Democrats, are disgusted with the composition and course
of the majority in the late Legislature

In the same letter Ross drew an ironic parallel between
his fight with the New Mexican Assembly and that of himself
and Johnson with a Radical Congress. Then he threw down
the gauntlet :

I defy them now as on the other occasion cited, to do their
worst. This is 1887, not 1868 This has become a fight to the

65. Pamphlet: The Other Side Warden Gable's Reply (Las Vegas, 1887), in Ross
Papers. See also Rio Grande Republican, March 5, 1887.

Ross made the further mistake of appointing his brother in law, H. C. Bennett, to
replace Gable. See criticism of the appointment in the Deming Headlight, October
28, 1887.

66. Gildersleeve to the Secretary of the Interior (copy), February 26, 1886. Ross
Papers.

67. Ross to L. Q. C. Lamar, January 26, 1887, in Ross "Letterbook," Ross Papers.

68. Ross to John O'Grady, March 26, 1887.

69. Ibid.

196 NEW MEXICO HISTORICAL REVIEW

death, it will go on till I am killed or out of office or the thieves
in prison.

Before the next Assembly was to meet, Ross became in-
volved in less dramatic but extremely important disputes
over the economic destiny of New Mexico. Here again he was
forced into the role of a fighting minority, even within his
own party ranks. True to his Kansas free-soil convictions
and philosophy, Ross dreamed of a New Mexico populated
by homesteading family farmers who boasted an American
background. He constructed an attractive catechism of New
Mexican development which he pursued by speech and deed
for the rest of his life. It ran as follows : settle the Spanish and
Mexican land grant tangle by a special federal commission or
court. Once title is cleared, reserve these public lands for
homesteaders rather than ranchers, the small farm to be
made feasible by government irrigation projects which would
supply water at cost to the settler. 70 Simultaneously, mining
should be encouraged both by the importation of capital and
the building of railroads. The farmer would therefore have a
ready made local market in the mining communities, while
the mining companies and the railroads would furnish the
economic means to bring schools, proper political organiza-
tions, civilization, and statehood. In every annual report, in
every speech, he recited this plan. And while Ross may not be
counted as one of New Mexico's most popular or successful
governors, he had nevertheless such a thorough and signifi-
cant free soil theory of colonial maturation, that had he been
successful he would have been indeed a "Montezuma" for
New Mexico.

In what ways did he attempt to make his program or
"credo" a reality? In his annual reports to the Secretary of
the Interior Ross at first urged the creation of a Federal Com-
mission (this was the era of the Utah, Civil Service, and
Interstate Commerce Commissions) to settle land problems.
He persuaded Joseph to introduce a bill to Congress to that

70. Report of the Governor of New Mexico to the Secretary of th Interior, 1886
(Washington, 1886), p. 8.

GOVERNOR ROSS 197

effect. 71 He also asked prominent New Mexicans to go to
Washington to lobby in its behalf. 72 Ross encountered both
the opposition of Julian and United States Land Commis-
sioner Sparks, however, so that a year later he declared in-
stead for the creation of a court of private land claims. 73 He
journeyed to Washington to testify in favor of its creation.
Upon discovering that the proposed court was to sit exclu-
sively in the national capital, he conducted a campaign to
amend the act so that the court must convene in the territories
affected. Only in this way, Ross thought, could the small
claimant bear the expenses of a trial. When the McCreary
Act embodying these proposals became law in July, 1888,
Delegate Joseph graciously congratulated Ross on having
played a major role in its formulation and passage. 74 Since
Governor Prince somewhat immodestly takes full credit for
having gotten this court, and Ralph Twitchell gives Frank
Springer the credit for its creation, it seems only fair given
the actual history of the origins of this court to let Ross
share some of the laurels too. 75

An incidental obstacle to the achievement of Ross' New
Mexican "utopia" was the Indian problem. When renegade
Apaches led by Geronimo and other chiefs went on the war-
path in the fall of 1885, the settlers and miners of southwest-
ern New Mexico and portions of Arizona besieged Ross with
panic-stricken reports. Angered by the slow movements of
General Crook, and acutely distrustful of Crook's use of
Indian scouts, Ross in a joint letter signed by all federal New
Mexican officials asked Cleveland to remove Crook and ap-

71. Report of the Governor of New Mexico to the Secretary of the Interior, 1885
(Washington, 1885), pp. 4-5. See also Antonio Joseph to Ross, May 31, 1886, and July
19, 1886. Ross Papers.

72. Ross' efforts to raise a delegation of influential New Mexicans to go to Washing-
ton to force settlement of land titles are revealed mostly by the replies of the men
approached. See the letters of Roman Baca, Antonio Joseph, A. J. Fountain, Thomas
Dorsey, John A. Lee, Nicolas and Nestor Armijo, W. B. Childers, H. M. Meredith, to
Ross in "Letters Received, November-December, 1887," Ross Papers.

73. Senate Executive Document No. 136. 49th Cong., 1st. Sess. ; see also Ross' testi-
mony before the Committee on Private Land Claims on July 26, 1888, extracts of
which may be found in his "Political Speeches," in the Rosa Papers.

Julian, "Land Stealing in New Mexico," pp. 29-30.

74. Telegram of Antonio Joseph to Ross, July 25, 1888 ; letter of Joseph to Ross,
July 30, 1888. Ross Papers.

75. Prince, Concise History, p. 207 ; Twitchell, II, 462-467.

198 NEW MEXICO HISTORICAL REVIEW

point General Nelson A. Miles in his stead. 76 He pressed Gov-
ernor Zulick of Arizona to do the same. 77 Ross was also highly
indignant that certain eastern papers were suggesting at this
time that the settlers were playing up an Indian war in order
to sell agricultural goods at premium prices to troops. 78 Far
from being a sentimental humanitarian, Ross stood for any
Indian policy, no matter how harsh, which would allow the
settler to come in. On the Indian issue, at least, Ross and the
territory were united. It is fitting in a way that the last Indian
outbreak in New Mexican history should be ended during
Ross' "no nonsense and no pampering" administration. Nor
is it surprising to find that he supported the Dawes Severalty
Act, which in theory turned the Indian into a homesteading
farmer. 79

By advocating homestead policies, Ross inevitably came
into conflict with the range cattleman just when the latter
was in his heyday. Although mining provided some $,000,000
in wealth annually for New Mexico in 1886, the product of
the cattle industry that year was estimated at $13,000,000. 80
Moreover, it was Texas cattlemen and ranchers who com-
prised an important section of the territorial Democratic
party. Nevertheless, when Ross learned that the Lincoln
County Stock Association was harassing sheep men in that
district, his sympathies were immediately on the side of the
sheep men. 81 By correspondence with local democrats and
sympathetic editors Ross discreetly collected evidence about
these conflicts. The more he learned the less he approved of
cattlemen in general. He found, for example, that the so-called
"quarantine laws" designed to keep diseases and notably
Mexican cattle out of the territory, actually had the practi-

76. Ross to Grover Cleveland, Santa Fe, November 7, 1885. Ross Papers. See also
W. H. H. Llewellyn to General George Crook, January 30, 1886, quoted in Katherine
Shephard, The Miles-Crook Controversy. Unpublished Master's Thesis (Department of
History, University of New Mexico, 1936), p. 50.

77. Ross to Governor G. Meyer Zulick, Santa Fe, August 4, 1886. MS. letter in
Arizona Territorial Papers (Arizona State Archives, Phoenix).

78. Ross to Congressman James Laird, Santa Fe, December 5, 1886. Roes Papers.
78. Ibid.

80. Hammond and Donnelly, The Story of New Mexico, p. 137. The Stock Grower
(Las Vegas), February 11, 1888.

81. to Ross, Fort Stanton, June 22, 1885 ; John Y. Hewitt to Ross, White

Oaks, New Mexico, June 23, 1885. Ross Papers.

GOVERNOR ROSS 199

cal effect of reserving the range for those cattlemen who were
already in New Mexico. Many local ranchers were, in fact,
smuggling more cattle in from Mexico in order to hold larger
range plots. 82 Since the sheriff of Lincoln County was also
the vice-president of the Cattle Association there, Ross knew
that he was not a very reliable instrument of justice where
sheep men were concerned. 83 But to Ross the injustice went
further than that. To him the ranching industry implied a
sparse population, huge landed estates which he called "a
constant menace to popular government" and oligarchic
rule. It does not seem too far-fetched to suggest that Ross saw
in the rancher the threat to freedom that he saw in the slave-
owning planter in Kansas in 1856.

Typical of Ross' difficulties in bringing about justice in
a cattle-sheep conflict was his experience in dealing with one
E. Carlisle, a rancher living on the New Mexico-Colorado
border. In the winter of 1885-86 Ross learned that two Du-
rango cowboys employed by Carlisle had shot and killed a
New Mexican sheep herder with the improbable name of
Ricardo Jacques. A mock trial had been held, during which
the friends of the cowboys had brought their guns into the
courtroom and had held a cocked Winchester on any witness
thought to be hostile. Ross' investigation also revealed that
Carlisle had wired Attorney General Breeden to get his men
"off." As the unpleasant facts came in the Governor con-
cluded that not only had injustice been done, but that Car-
lisle's was a "hurrah" outfit which had caused trouble with
Indians in that section; and further, as Coloradoans, had
actually poached on New Mexican soil traditionally reserved
for sheep herders. 84 Nothing in Ross' whole career excited
him more than this type of evasion of law and order. In a
phillipic to Carlisle, whom he considered the real culprit he
declared that :

82. J. E. Curren to Ross, Lake Valley, New Mexico, July 7, 1885. Ross Papers.

83. Hewitt to Ross, June 23, 1885. Ross Papers.

84. See letters, newspaper clippings, telegrams, and public broadsides in "Cattle-
Sheep Wars" folder, Ross Papers. See particularly a broadside letter from Ross to
Carlisle, February 9, 1886 ; Carlisle to Ross, Durango, February 13, 1886 ; Ross to J. D.
Warren, February 16, 1886 ; T. D. Burns to Ross, Tierra Amarilla, February 17, 1886 ;
Ross to Carlisle, February 18, 1886 ; Affidavit of Telesfor Lopez, March 8, 1886.

200 NEW MEXICO HISTORICAL REVIEW

Your employees . . . have for years constituted the nucleus
of an element that has practically terrorized that region of
country. You have permitted them to go armed, contrary to
the laws of New Mexico, and sustained them in their lawless
proceedings, till a reign of public disorder seems imminent.
You have the power, through control of your employees, to put
a stop to these practices. This, I insist that you do and cause
them to respect the equal right of others, and the law. If you do
not, they shall be arrested and punished, or driven from the
Territory. 85

Ross was as good as his word for by May, 1886, the Grand
Jury of Coif ax County had indicted William Wilson for mur-
der and Lee Hamblett and Stephen Roupe as accessories, and
the men were eventually convicted. 86 In other instances, how-
ever, Ross failed to make his power felt. Evasive and laconic
explanations by local peace officers of how somebody just
happened to get shot by "persons unknown," or who had obvi-
ously let the guilty parties escape, drew from Ross thunderous
reminders that they must do their duty or else. 87 Nevertheless,
the cattle and sheep "wars" continued, and local sheriffs and
juries continued to favor the cattleman.

Ross expressed his anti-cattle bias in his first annual
report to the Interior Department by recommending that
there be no further disposal of public lands except for home-
steading purposes. 88 In subsequent reports he commented that
the cattleman's theory of a permanent range was a bad one,
for a cattle frontier was by nature temporary. 89 In a speech to
the Aztec Club of New Mexico in July, 1885, he complimented
the cattlemen upon their contribution to the settlement and
wealth of the territory, but he warned them that there must
be order between them and the sheep interests. That order
was needed, he said, so people would migrate to New Mexico.
"People are worth more to a state than steers," he exclaimed,
. . . "for with people comes capital and the spirit of commercial

85. Ross to Carlisle, February 9, 1886.

86. MS Bills of Indictment for William Wilson, Lee Hamblett, and Stephen Roupe
presented by the Colfax County Grand Jury, 1886.

87. See "Proclamations" in Ross Papers for one to force sheriffs "to make arrests."

88. Report of the Governor of New Mexico. . . , 1885, pp. 7-8.

89. Report of the Governor of New Mexico. . . , 1887, pp. 6-8.

GOVERNOR ROSS 201

adventure, development, prosperity, and greatness." 90 Two
years later he bluntly told a crowd at the Territorial Fair that
the "granger was coming and coming to stay." 91

Naturally, Ross' position caused comment. J. E. Curran,
editor of the Sierra Grande Press wrote in the fall of 1885 :

I 'love you for the enemies you have made'. The rings and
cliques don't like you. The Deming ring don't like you. The
Hopewell and Grayson cattle ring are down on you, and the
Las Cruces gang would betray you first chance. 92

A week later Jesse E. Thompson, the Superintendent of
Public Schools in Sierra, warned that the "Cattle barons" and
"land jobbers" were down on Ross and were allied with
Breeden and Thornton. 93

It would seem obvious that if Ross properly fitted the
"rule or ruin" role conferred upon him by Max Frost and
others, he would have gone after the Maxwell Land Grant
Company and Frank Springer, its able lawyer. Here was
another symbol of all Ross disliked : the seemingly fraudulent
land grant claim, the cattle empire with an anti-nester policy,
and the economic tyrant of most of northeastern New Mexico.
While Surveyor General Julian would give no quarter to these
interests, Ross steered clear of the perennial feuds and im-
broglios in Colfax County as much as possible. He carefully
evaded identification with Oscar P. McMains, that indefatiga-
ble crusader against the Maxwell interests. He allowed M. W.
Mills, a Republican and a Maxwell man, to remain district
attorney in Colfax County throughout his administration
despite strong pressure from local Democrats to appoint
Sydney Smith. While Mills was certainly a capable attorney

90. Pamphlet: Governor Rosa' Banquet Speech to the Aztec Club of Albuquerque
(July 22, 1885). Copy in Henry E. Huntington Library. See also Albuquerque Morning
Journal, July 23, 1885.

91. Albuquerque Morning Democrat, September 21, 1887 ; Deming Headlight, Sep-
tember 23, 1887.

Roy Willoughby has asserted that open-range ranching in New Mexico was actually
on the decline by 1885. See his The Cattle Range Industry in New Mexico. Unpublished
Master's Thesis (Department of History, University of New Mexico, 1933), p. 89.

92. J. E. Curren to Ross, November 29, 1885. Ross Papers.

93. Jesse E. Thompson to Ross, December 8, 1885. Ross Papers.

202 NEW MEXICO HISTORICAL REVIEW

he was by no means a reformer. 94 Ross even shied away from
outright support of any one newspaper or policy for the
region. It is very probable that Ross expected the Maxwell
Company to get its just deserts in the outcome of the trial
pending against it in the Supreme Court in 1887. But the
surprise decision that the Company had a right to its ex-
tended claims put an end to any such hope. 95 The point to be
made is that while Ross was a reformer who wanted to im-
pose free soil ideals on New Mexico, he was not so impulsive
and uncomplicated as Max Frost might suggest in his stereo-
type. As Ross himself had said to Attorney General Garland,
he did not want to be "hurried" beyond his judgment.
* * * *

By 1887 it was obvious that Ross was not going to "re-
form" New Mexico through legislation, or by way of a faith-
ful executive set of officers. Relying upon his faith in public
opinion he had established a small administration paper, the
Santa Fe Weekly Leader; but deprived of legislative patron-
age, it quietly succumbed. He negotiated through prominent
Democrats to buy the Las Vegas Chronicle and later the
Optic, but these efforts also failed. 96 While he had the support
of J. C. Albright in the Albuquerque Morning Democrat, J. E.
Curren in the Sierra Grande Press, and Singleton M. Ashen-
f elter, editor of the Southwest Sentinel, these were not power-
ful enough to turn the tide of hostile opinion. The inchoate
societies of the Southwestern mining towns and the recently
arrived farmers whose interests Ross defended were not yet
organized in such a way that they could be a force in Ross'
favor. Clearly Montezuma's restoration was at an impasse.
How could he find his way to go ahead ?

Ross' answer was similar to Johnson's program for re-
constructing the South : a quick and easy passage to state-

94. See letter Sn behalf of French in "Letter Received, July, 1886" ; J. C. Holmes
to Ross, Raton, July 31, 1885; and O. P. McMains to Ross, August (n.d.), 1885 urging
Mills' removal. Ross Papers.

95. Dunham, Government Handout, pp. 233-238, also the Santa Fe New Mexican,
February 2. 1889.

96. Scattered copies of the Leader are in the Ross Papers. See also correspondence
concerning the purchase of the Gazette and Optic in "Letters Received, March to April,
1886," Ross Papers. Delegate Joseph was pessimistic about the success of a Democratic
paper in Santa Fe and refused to encourage Ross in his endeavors. Joseph to Ross, July
23, 1886.

GOVERNOR ROSS 203

hood. In the spring of 1887 he persuaded the amiable Delegate
Joseph to present a memorial for New Mexico's admission
to the Union. His hopes rose further when Congress consid-
ered the Springer Omnibus Bill of December 1887, which pro-
posed that the Dakotas, Montana and New Mexico be ad-
mitted together. Writing to his brother-in-law, H. C. Bennett
of Silver City, he urged him to support the bill. The advan-
tages of statehood were so great, he argued, that the New
Mexican public must be aroused to demand admission. 97 The
failure of the Springer bill did not dampen Ross' enthusiasm.
Again in 1888 Joseph was persuaded to introduce a statehood
memorial, and Ross himself began to mention the outlines of
a proposed constitution in his public speeches. 98 Even after
Cleveland was defeated in November, 1888, and it was obvious
that Ross' term as governor would soon end, he declared
himself in favor of statehood in his message to the 28th
Assembly. 99

While the political intrigues surrounding the 1889 con-
stitutional convention occurred after Ross had left office, and
do not fall within the purview of this study, it is proper to
note that despite the opposition of much of his own party
who felt that the Republican legislature had unfairly appor-
tioned the delegates to the convention Ross appears to have
worked diligently for admission. The constitution produced
by that convention was so conservative and "pro land grant,"
however, that in disgust he joined his party in opposing its
ratification. Ross is on record as having opposed statehood
when in actuality he opposed only the constitution pro-
pounded by the statehood forces of 1889 and 1890. 100

Ross' final year in office was crowded with frustrating dif-
ficulties. The election of a new legislature was accompanied by
evidence of such blatant frauds at the polls that Ross appealed
to Washington for legal aid to prevent the defeated candidates

97. Ross to H. C. Bennett, Washington, February 24, 1888.

98. See "copy" of Joseph's Memorial, March 27, 1888, in Ross Papers.

99. Edmund G. Ross, General and Special Messages to the 28th Legislative Assembly
of the Territory of New Mexico ( Santa Fe, 1889 ) , p. iv ; Acts of the Legislative Assembly
of . . . New Mexico, Twenty-Eighth Session (Santa Fe, 1889), Chapter 99, pp. 235-240.

100. For an excellent post-mortem of the 1889 vote on the New Mexico Constitution,
see Ross' broadside public letter to Congressman C. H. Mansur, January 5, 1890, entitled
"The New Mexico Statehood Proposition." Ross Papers.

204 NEW MEXICO HISTORICAL REVIEW

from contesting the election and thus hampering the legisla-
ture. The election itself had been climaxed by the murder of
Dumas Provencher, a homesteader, who was shot at the polls
in San Rafael. The murder was a political one, but Ross' ef-
forts to apprehend the killers were met by such extraordinary
evasiveness on the part of both parties that little could be
done. 101 As he read the conflicting reports he was faced with
a new Assembly whose Republican members seemed deter-
mined to clear those suspected of committing the crime. Un-
doubtedly he agreed with the pessimistic conclusion of Walter
G. Marmon, an old friend who was now the governor of
Laguna Pueblo, who wrote him that the "present legislature"
was no improvement on the one of two years before : "personal
likes and dislikes, partisan hate and ignorance rule the actions
of its members." 102

Still undaunted, Ross sent a ringing reform message to
the 28th Assembly. He proposed abolition of the antiquated
and unsatisfactory financial system of the territory. Unfair
taxation, speculation in territorial warrants, the corrupt of-
fice of county assessor and non-taxation of land grants were
his particular targets of criticism. He mad his usual plea for
a public school system and at the same time urged the estab-
lishment of an insane asylum. In conformity with his home-
steading and mining program for New Mexico, he urged the
creation of an agricultural college, irrigation development,
the settlement of land titles, and a geological survey for the
Territory. 103

Like its predecessor, the 28th Assembly was extremely
hostile to Ross. Now that enough time had elapsed so that
Ross had the legal right to appoint new territorial officers,
the legislature refused to confirm most of his choices, full
knowing that if they did, these Democratic incumbents could
then hold office for two years just as Colonel Breeden had

101. Amado Chavez to Ross, San Mateo, November 10 and 28, 1888 ; and Walter G.
Marmon to Ross, Laguna, January 26, 1889. Ross Papers.

102. Marmon to Ross, Ibid. Marmon was a surveyor who came to New Mexico to
work on the Navajo Reservation project. He remained in the Territory to become a
teacher and trader at Laguna Pueblo. After marrying into the tribe he became its
governor In 1886.

103. Edmund G. Ross, General and Special Messages to the Twenty-Eighth Legisla-
tive Assembly of New Mexico (Santa Fe, 1889).

GOVERNOR ROSS 205

done. Naturally they could hinder a Republican governor's
program. The ends to which the legislature was willing to go
to prevent Ross from making any appointments can be seen
in the Act which created the office of "Solicitor General" for
the Territory. This new office virtually appropriated all the
duties of the Attorney General, but was not to be filled until
October, 1889 (after Ross would be safely out of office) . Fur-
ther, any attempt to "impersonate" the Solicitor General's
duties under another title was declared a "felony." Thus if
Ross' appointee to the Attorney General's office carried out
his duties, that was a felonious act. At the same time he
could not appoint a solicitor general. And despite his veto,
the act became law. 104

In his relations with the 28th Legislature, both Prince and
Twitchell have stressed Ross' lavish use of the veto power.

In 1889 there were in all 145 laws enacted. Of the first 45,
Governor Ross approved 26, three were passed over his veto,
and 16 became valid "by limitation". The relations between the
governor and the legislature being more and more strained, we
find that of the last 100 laws he approved only 21, nine being
passed over vetoes and 70 becoming valid without action by the
governor. 105

By Prince's interpretation, Ross' role was merely that of
an irate negator. They fail to mention that a Ross supporter
and fellow editor, J. A. Kistler, pushed through an intelligent
public school bill only to have it defeated at the last moment
by Tom Catron in a complicated maneuver to garner Repub-
lican support for a constitutional convention. 106 Similarly,
Pedro Perea is given credit for ending the vicious speculation
in territorial warrants and reforming New Mexico's financial
system, when it was Ross' close friend and fellow Democrat,
Henry L. Waldo, who drew the bill. Similarly, the legislature
did, with an incredible amount of log-rolling, establish an
asylum, a university, an agricultural and a mining college,

104. Prince, Concise History, PP. 205-206 ; Twitchell, II, 601.

105. Prince, Concise History, Ibid.

106. Ross himself wrote a clear account of the defeat of the Kistler school bill in
a pamphlet entitled: Public Schools and Statehood for New Mexico (March 31, 1890)
which was actually a public letter to Congressman J. S. Struble. Ross Papers.

206 NEW MEXICO HISTORICAL REVIEW

and passed Ross' wanted call for a constitutional conven-
tion. 107 Ross' administration was not so "barren of result" as
Prince has suggested. Actually, Ross had shown the need for
educational, financial, and land reform which the legislature,
hostile or not, eventually had to acknowledge. It is indeed
ironic that Governor Prince's administration is given the
credit for a decent public education law, a workable financial
system, the institution of the Private Court of Land Claims,
and a major attempt at statehood. While Prince did secure
these things, in a sense he merely reaped where Ross had
sown.

As always when he was seeking justice, Ross exposed the
Assembly's failures by publishing a broadside letter to New
Mexico at large. In it he lamented the death of the Kistler
school bill which he called a "blunder which falls but little
short of a crime." Determined to separate the sheep from the
goats, he praised his old enemy, Colonel Chavez, for having
supported the bill. 108 Ross' suggested remedy was the same
that he and Burke had proposed six years before : a federally
imposed system of education for the territory. In a prophetic
warning he declared that without public education New
Mexico would never be admitted to the Union. A dozen years
later when Albert Beveridge began his ten year crusade to
prevent New Mexico's admission, the lack of schools was one
of his most telling arguments. 109 In a last-minute appreciation
of Ross, an old opponent, the editor of the Deming Headlight,
praised him for his intelligent and courageous stand against
the Legislature. 110

There is no doubt that many of Ross' goals were idealistic
and impracticable given the political and economic conditions
of New Mexico in the late 1880's. He was often too exacting
and blunt in dealing with men who had lived for twenty years
or more on legal intricacies and clever deals. His faith in
public opinion led him to move too openly and to depend on

107. TwitcheU. II. 601-502.

108. The New Mexico Interpreter (White Oaks. N. Mex.). March 8, 1889.

109. Ibid. Ross Public Schools and Statehood; see also Charles E. Maddox, The
Statehood Policy of Albert J. Beveridge, 1906-1911. Unpublished Master's Thesis (Depart-
ment of History, University of New Mexico, 1947 ) .

110. Deming Headlight, March 8, 1889.

GOVERNOR ROSS 207

proclamation, and his faith in automatic regard for good
service was perhaps naive. Just as he was about to be relieved
of office, he appears to have entertained the hope that his old
senatorial friend, Benjamin Harrison, would keep him on for
a time. But with the Santa Fe politicians barking at his heels,
the new President could do no such thing ; and L. Bradford
Prince became governor in Ross' stead. 111

Ross left office, unlike most New Mexican territorial gov-
ernors a relatively poor man. His friend, S. M. Ashenfelter,
having just purchased the Deming Headlight, offered him a
job on that paper. Ross was to accept the position a year later.
Before that transpired however, Max Frost, Ross' old enemy
came forward to offer him a job on the Santa Fe New Mexi-
can! Twitchell, the New Mexican and the Ross family, all say
that the amazing offer was accepted. 112 Ross' purpose appears
to have been to advance the cause of statehood, of which Max
Frost was now the leading editorial advocate in New Mexico.
By this strange alliance, each man paid tribute to the ability
of the other as a f oeman worthy of the other's steel. But it was
also Ross' tribute to the power of the press which had so
excoriated him during his four years in office. This ill-fitted
alliance was short-lived, nevertheless, and by 1890 the New
Mexican called the late governor "that thick-skinned bundle
of conceit at Deming." 113 Relations between them had re-
turned to normal, it seems.

Ross spent the remainder of his life preoccupied with his
dream of a populous, agricultural New Mexico. Appropri-
ately, he became the Secretary of the Territorial Board of
Immigration, and a writer of articles in behalf of irrigation.
In later years, he turned more and more to a history of that
great moment in his life: Andrew Johnson's impeachment,
which he wanted to treat in a full length account. Troubled
by failing eyesight and poor health, he nevertheless managed
to publish a work on the famous trial in 1896. But Ross was
dissatisfied with his own account and was still redrafting a

111. Ross left office April 2, 1889. Pomeroy, Territories and the U.S., p. 110.

112. Twitchell, II, 497n. ; Leis, "Memoirs of Ross" ; Santa Fe New Mexican, January
8, 1890.

113. Ibid.

208 NEW MEXICO HISTORICAL REVIEW

manuscript of the earlier version when he died in 1907. 114

* * * *

One may ask : what is the significance of Ross as the chief
executive of New Mexico? He was, first of all, a transitional
governor who realized that it was high time the territory
began to move towards economic maturity and statehood and
away from an economic and political colonial status. Always
advocating railroads and mining as well as agriculture, he
laid the foundations or at least they were formed while he
was in office for a new economy. As one student of New
Mexican history has observed :

The time between 1880 and 1900 may be called the begin-
ning of the present type of economy in New Mexico and the arid
Southwest, for the arrival of the Santa Fe [Railroad] heralded
the replacement of mercantile capitalism by the industrial cap-
italism still present today. . . . [An] . . . economic theory which
appears to have been borne out in New Mexico in this period is
that as a region progresses from an underdeveloped one, the
inequality of income diminishes.

Heath estimates that in the period 1880 to 1900 property
values in New Mexico increased 372.5 per cent with no popu-
lation explosion to accompany it. 115 Whether successful or
not, Ross' own economic program was designed to bring about
just such beneficial changes as Heath has described.

The veteran Kansas Free Soiler also had the faith that he
could remake New Mexico just as he and his friends had
"shaped" Kansas while defeating the slavery interests. Ross,
then, was a creature of habit, for his techniques were the
familiar ones of the abolitionist crusade by printed word, the
"reconstruction" of society (in the Radical Republican sense
of that phrase) by land reform, and finally by political demo-
cratization. He also had faith in the power of the federal gov-
ernment to do anything for the general welfare. To these
elements he added a belief in a powerful executive. While he

114. Leis, "Memoirs of Ross." See also Ross, History of the Impeachment of Andrew
Johnson . . . for High Crimes and Misdemeanors in Office ( Santa Fe, 1896 ) .

115. Jim Heath, A Study of the Influence of the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe
Railroad Upon the Economy of New Mexico, 1878 to 1900. Unpublished Master's Thesis
(Department of Economics, University of New Mexico, 1955), p. 5 and p. 168.

GOVERNOR ROSS 209

failed to reconstruct this second territorial home in the fabled
land of Montezuma, a perusal of the records would indicate
that his failure was due not so much to the stubbornness and
antagonizing- qualities as it was to a weak and divided Demo-
cratic party, an able and sometimes brilliant opposition by
Republican leaders, and too great haste.

On the other hand, it should be remembered that Ross was
not exactly a voice crying in the wilderness. While he was in
office Congress was busy using radical reconstruction tech-
niques in Utah in order to end polygamy and curb the power
of the Mormon Church. In Wyoming Territory Governor
Thomas Moonlight was defending the "nester" against the
cattlemen, and behind them all stood a reformist Department
of Interior. Just as he was leaving office, Ross' heroes the
farmers had begun to form alliances in the Middle West and
in New Mexico itself to fight for reforms of their own.

On the local level, however, Ross retired from office under
conditions similar to those Andrew Johnson had experienced
during his last year in the White House : shorn of his appoint-
ment powers by tenure of office acts and hampered by a hostile
legislature. But "Montezuma" Ross at least had the grim
pleasure of knowing that he had given the political and eco-
nomic old guard in New Mexico an "Indian scare" they would
not soon forget and would some day appreciate. In the entire
history of American territorial government after the Civil
War Ross alone appears to have sought to make the tradi-
tionally weak position of governor powerful and through
that medium work to revamp the economic and political struc-
ture of a vast region. His failure was not nearly so significant
as his dream.

116. For evidence of the Farmers' Alliance movement in New Mexico see the Raton
Daily Independent, February 28, 1889. (Bancroft.)
[NEW MEXICO HISTORICAL REVIEW, Vol. 36, No. 3. July, 1961]

THE PRESIDIO SUPPLY PROBLEM OF
NEW MEXICO IN THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY*

By MAX L. MOORHEAD

THE Presidial Company of Santa Fe, usually numbering
above one hundred officers and men, constituted one of
the most remote garrisons on New Spain's northern frontier
during the eighteenth century. Regular troops serving there
faced not only the ordinary military dangers of campaigning
in rugged terrain against hostile Indians but also the morale-
shaking economic perils of indebtedness. They almost never
received sufficient income to cover their expenses. The prob-
lem was general all along the northern frontier, and although
it was never satisfactorily solved, the higher authorities, from
the King down to the Comandante General, fully realized the
seriousness of the situation and repeatedly attacked the diffi-
culties. Some improvement was attained before the close of
the century, but most of the reforms that were instituted
changed procedures rather than conditions.

At first the frontier troops were paid their salaries in
cash and were allowed to buy their provisions and equipment
from local or itinerant merchants as best they could. In their
remote posts, however, they were soon at the mercy of a few
tradesmen whose prices were under little if any official re-
straint. Unable to cover these mounting costs with their own
fixed pay, the soldiers fell into a steadily increasing debt.
During the seventeenth century a new practice was developed
wherein the purchase of provisions was centralized in the
captains of the presidial companies. It was supposed that
these officers could bargain with the merchants more effec-
tively than could the individual soldiers. Also during the
seventeenth century half of the salaries of these troops, and
sometimes the entire amount, was paid in provisions rather
than cash. Not only did this reduce the treasury's risk and

* This study was made possible by a grant-in-aid from the Faculty Research Com-
mittee of the University of Oklahoma.

Dr. Moorhead is Professor of History, University of Oklahoma, Norman.

210

PRESIDIO SUPPLY 211

difficulty in transporting specie to the isolated presidios but
it also, in theory at least, prevented the troops from over-
spending for their needs. In practice it did not. The company
captains, who were sometimes also the provincial governors,
were as rapacious as the merchants. They bought the provi-
sions from private tradesmen at one price and sold them to
the soldiers, or charged them against their salaries, at a
much higher rate. Thus, while these officials profited enor-
mously, the troops sank even more deeply in debt. 1

In New Mexico, the Presidial Company of Santa Fe had
authorized Captain Felix Martinez and a local merchant,
Pedro Otero, to purchase its provisions. The Marques de
Penuela, who was at once governor of the province and com-
mandant of the presidio, bought a large consignment of goods
in collusion with Martinez and Otero and in 1712 offered them
to the troops at marked-up prices. By withholding the salaries
of the troops, he endeavored to make them sign over 25,000
pesos of their pay to cover the cost of this merchandise. 2 As
many of the soldiers were already in debt to him, Governor
Penuela also forced the entire garrison to sign a waiver on
their salaries of ten pesos apiece. This was to cover the debts
of any of their comrades who might die while still owing him
for provisions. Complaining of this practice, the troops peti-
tioned Penuela' s successor, Juan Ignacio Flores Mogollon, to
cancel the power of attorney which they had previously given
Captain Martinez and Otero. These, they charged, had failed
to comply with their agreement to furnish their provisions

1. Well-documented studies demonstrating the abuses in the provisioning: of the
troops in northern New Spain during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries include
the following: Francisco R. Almada (ed. ), Informe de Hugo de O'Conor sobre el estado
de las Provincial Internas del Norte, 1771-1776 (Mexico, 1952) ; Carlos E. Castaneda
et aL, Our Catholic Heritage in Texas, 1519-1936 (7 vols., Austin, 1936-1958) ; Charles
E. Chapman, The Founding of Spanish California: The Northwestward Expansion of
New Spain, 1687-178S (New York, 1916) ; Charles W. Hackett (ed.), Historical Docu-
ments Relating to New Mexico, Nueva Vizcaya, and Approaches Thereto, to 177S (3
vols., Washington, 1923-1937) ; Lawrence Kinnaird (ed.), The Frontiers of New Spain:
Nicolas de Lafora's Description, 1766-1768 (Berkeley, 1959) ; Alfred B. Thomas (ed.),
After Coronado: Spanish Exploration Northeast of New Mexico, 1690-1727 (Norman,
1935) ; Thomas (ed.), Teodoro de Croix and the Northern Frontier of New Spain,
1776-178S (Norman, 1941) ; and Donald E. Worcester (ed.), Instructions for Governing
the Interior Provinces of New Spain, 1786, by Bernardo de Gdlvez (Berkeley, 1951).

2. Soldiers of the presidio of Santa Fe, petition to the Cabildo, August 1, 1712,
Spanish Archives of New Mexico, at Santa Fe (Hereinafter cited as SANM), archive 177.

212 NEW MEXICO HISTORICAL REVIEW

at cost. 3 Later the same year, the Viceroy intervened with an
order prohibiting the governors from withholding the salaries
of the troops, applying this money to payment of their debts,
or obligating them to purchase supplies they had not ordered. 4
Curiously, the garrison at Santa Fe petitioned the Viceroy
not to apply this regulation to Governor Flores Mogoll6n
because, they declared, he was supplying them satisfactorily
with all of their needs, and they preferred that he did their
buying rather than Captain Martinez or Otero. According to
Captain Martinez, Governor Flores Mogollon had compelled
the troops to cancel their arrangement with him and Otero.
but the troops contended they had done so of their own free
will. They had, they said, suffered considerable arrears from
Martinez's purchases. 5 Reiterating this position in 1715, the
troops declared that Martinez's allegations that the troops
had been under duress when they revoked their concession to
Martinez and Otero and that they had suffered no indebted-
ness while they and Governor Penuela were provisioning
them were both malicious and false. They maintained that
they had come to owe Governor Penuela 75,000 pesos and
Otero 18,664 pesos under that arrangement and that, after
deductions had been made from their salaries, they still
owed the former 44,000 pesos. 6

When Captain Martinez became governor ad interim of
New Mexico in October of 1715, he immediately arrested
Flores Mogollon and accused him of gross mal-administration.
While these charges were being investigated, Flores Mogo-
llon languished in prison at Mexico City for more than two
years. According to Martinez, Flores Mogollon had not only
charged the soldiers extravagant prices for their provisions
but had also attempted to sell them the same goods they had
already paid for with deductions from their salaries. 7 Gov-
ernor Martinez himself was shortly removed from office for

3. Soldiers of the Presidio of Santa Fe, petition to the Governor Juan Ignacio Flores
Mogoll6n, November 2. 1712, SANM, archive 183b.

4. Soldiers of the Presidio of Santa Fe, representation to the Viceroy, July IB, 1718,
SANM, archive 192a.

B. Ibid.

6. Presidio of Santa Fe, junta proceedings. May 27, 1715, SANM, archive 219.

7. Juan de Olivan Revolledo (Auditor of New Spain) to the Viceroy, Mexico City,
September 22, 1723, in Thomas (ed.), After Coronado, 189.

PRESIDIO SUPPLY 213

similar offenses. Among other things he was accused of own-
ing a mercantile establishment at Santa Fe while he was in
office, a flagrant violation of royal law, and of supplying the
troops with provisions at marked-up prices instead of at cost,
as his agreement with the troops required. His storekeeper
was Juan Paez Hurtado, himself a former governor. 8

Subsequently, Martinez charged that his successor, Gov-
ernor Antonio Valverde y Cossio, profiteered in a similar
manner and that he withheld the salaries of the troops to
cover their debts for provisions which he furnished. 9 Whether
or not this was true, the officers and men of the Santa Fe
garrison praised the administration of Valverde. When he
left office in 1722, they urged the Viceroy to instruct his suc-
cessor, Juan Domingo de Bustamente, to continue Valverde's
practice of discounting from their annual pay fifty pesos
apiece and applying this toward the purchase of their provi-
sions. This, they declared, prevented them from going further
into debt. 10

In 1724 when the Viceroy commissioned Brigadier Pedro
de Rivera to inspect the presidios of the northern provinces,
he specifically instructed him to investigate the supply prob-
lem. Among other things Rivera was directed to ascertain
the cost of transporting provisions to each of the garrisons,
to compare the prices charged the troops with those current
in nearby towns, and to prevent the captains and governors
from overcharging the soldiers for these supplies. This last
abuse and others had reportedly been committed over the
past twenty years. 11 Although the presidial soldiers were
then paid an average of 450 pesos a year, one fourth of this
amount never reached them, according to the Viceroy, for the
salaries were paid in goods, and the captains, in connivance
with the merchants, had been charging exhorbitant prices for
these provisions. 12 The major result of Rivera's inspection

8. Judgement in residencia of Governor Felix Martinez, Santa Fe, August 16, 1723,
SANM, archive 322.

9. Martinez to the Viceroy [Mexico City, 1720], in Thomas (ed.), After Coronado,
177-187.

10. Soldiers of the Presidio of Santa Fe, petition to the Viceroy, March 15, 1722,
SANM, archive 315.

11. Castaneda, Our Catholic Heritage, II, 216-219.

12. Ibid., II, 211-214.

214 NEW MEXICO HISTORICAL REVIEW

and report was the adoption of a new presidial code, the Reg-
lamento of 1729. One requirement of this ordinance was that
maximum-price lists be posted at each garrison with equitable
rates assigned to the commodities most commonly ordered
by the troops. 13

The price ceilings thus established seem to have done little
to protect the soldiers, at least in New Mexico. In 1760 a
Franciscan missionary reported that the presidials at Santa
Fe had to pay 150 pesos a year for clothing of the poorest
quality and another 250 pesos for other provisions, some of
which they had not ordered. They were usually charged
double the current price for local produce: S 1 /^ silver pesos
instead of 2 for a fanega of corn, 4 for wheat instead of 2, 8
for beans instead of 4, and so on with meat, chili, and the
like. 14 In 1760 and again in 1764 the Viceroy found it neces-
sary to convoke juntas at Mexico City to regulate prices
charged the presidials, and the general inspection of the
northern garrisons made by the Marques de Rubi from 1766
to 1768 produced an extensive file of testimony on these over-
charges. 15 The main source of discontent among the troops,
Rubi reported, was that they were paid in goods instead of
in cash. 16

As a result of these findings, the Viceroy ordered in 1768
that the presidials be paid in cash. In New Mexico, however,
Governor Pedro Fermin de Mendinueta appealed for exemp-
tion from this requirement on the ground that there was never
sufficient specie in his province to meet the pay roll, and this
dispensation was granted in 1769. 17

The new Reglamento of 1772, growing out of Rubi's in-
spection and report, brought about a major reform in the
presidio supply system. Henceforth, under penalty of removal
from office and denial of further employment in the royal
service, the presidial captains and provincial governors were

13. Ibid., II, 220, 285.

14. Fray Juan Sanz de Lezaun, "Account of the Lamentable Happenings in New
Mexico," November 4, 1760, in Hackett (ed. ), Historical Documents Relating to New
Mexico, III, 468-479.

15. Chapman, Founding of Spanish California, 141-142.

16. Castaneda, Our Catholic Heritage, IV, 243.

17. Viceroy Marques de Croix to Governor Pedro Fermin de Mendinueta, Mexico
City, January 28, 1769, SANM, archive 644.

PRESIDIO SUPPLY 215

to cease managing- the payment of the troops' salaries and the
purchase and distribution of their provisions. These func-
tions were now vested in oficiales habilitados, non-commis-
sioned officers elected by the officers and men of their com-
panies for three-year terms. These paymasters were em-
powered to buy the goods ordered by the troops at wholesale
prices and to distribute them at this cost plus only 2 per cent,
an amount considered sufficient to cover their expenses. After
making the corresponding deductions for these purchases, the
retirement pay, and rations, the paymasters were supposed
to pay the troops the balance of their annual salaries in cash,
half of it in January and half in July. 18

Provisioning the troops through elected paymasters in-
stead of captains or governors did not solve the problem. The
non-commissioned officers who were elected were often ignor-
ant of accounting procedures and lacking in purchasing ex-
perience. They frequently bought the provisions at artificially
advanced prices, suffered serious losses in transporting them
to the presidios, and, through either dishonesty or incompe-
tence, allowed their bookkeeping records to become hopelessly
out of balance. As a result, one bankruptcy followed another,
leaving the troops in debt and short of food, clothing, and
ammunition. 19 Apparently the paymasters were unable to fill
all of the orders of the troops, for some soldiers bought direct-
ly from private merchants and charged the purchases against
the presidial payroll. In 1780 the Comandante General at
Chihuahua decreed that henceforth merchants were no longer
permitted to solicit his office for payment of debts owed by
soldiers who had purchased goods on their individual credit.
Compensation in such transactions would be made only when
there was a sufficient balance in the debtor's individual salary
account. 20

Beginning experimentally in 1781 and regularly in 1783,

18. Comandante Inspector Hugo de O'Conor, Informe, 1771-1776 (Almada, ed. ),
73-76 ; Chapman, Founding of Spanish California, 142 ; Castaneda, Our Catholic Heritage,
IV, 290-291.

19. Juan de Ugalde (Governor of Coahuila) to Comandante General Teodoro de
Croix, Hacienda de Sardinas, March 12, 1782 (copy), Archivo General y Publico de la
Nacion, at Mexico City, Provincias Internas, Vol. 13 (Hereinafter cited as AGN, Prov.
Int., 13), folios 411-413; Thomas (ed.), Teodoro de Croix, 13-14.

20. Teodoro de Croix, bando, Arispe, May 1, 1780, SANM, archive 788.

216 NEW MEXICO HISTORICAL REVIEW

the Comandante General abandoned the paymaster system
for purchasing provisions and let regular contracts to private
merchants. Each of these was assigned to one or two presidios
for a period of three years. 21 In Nueva Vizcaya and New
Mexico, while the presidial paymasters were supposed to have
charged the troops 2 per cent above the wholesale prices of
the provisions at Chihuahua, the new merchant contractors
were allowed to charge the higher retail prices there. Under
this arrangement no bankruptcies occurred, but by 1786,
when the contracts were about to expire, it was evident that
the salaries of the troops would not support these higher
costs. 22 The Comandante General therefore asked the con-
tractors to revise their rates downward, but each of them
complained that he could not do so and still make a profit,
and some said they were already losing money. 23 As a tempo-
rary solution to the problem, the Comandante General allowed
the contracts to lapse and reverted to the paymaster system
to tide the troops over the next year, 1787. He then enter-
tained bids for new contracts for the succeeding years. 24

The most attractive of the new offers came from Francisco
de Guizarnotegui, a member of the mercantile guild of Chi-
huahua who had been provisioning the presidio of Carrizal
and one of the patrol companies of Nueva Vizcaya under one
of the three-year contracts just terminated. Guizarnotegui
offered to provision all seven of the presidios of Nueva Viz-
caya, the four patrol companies of that province, and the
presidio of New Mexico as well for a period of five years under
certain stipulated conditions. 25 The other merchants of the
Chihuahua guild, acting jointly, countered with a bid of their
own, but after revising his own proposals twice to meet this

21. Ugalde to Croix, March 12, 1782; Francisco Xavier del Campo (Corregridor),
deposition, Chihuahua, September 5, 1786, AGN, Prov. Int., 13, fols. 411-413, 53-55.

22. Del Campo, deposition, September 5, 1786 ; Comandante Inspector Joseph de
Rengel to Comandante General Joaquin Ugarte y Loyola, Chihuahua, November 11,
1786; Pedro Galindo Navarro (Auditor of Provincias Internas) to Ugarte, Chihuahua,
December 2, 1786, AGN, Prov. Int., 13, fols. 53-55, 55-57, 57-59.

23. Del Campo, deposition, September 5, 1786, AGN, Prov. Int., 13, fols. 53-65.

24. Rengel to Ugarte, Chihuahua, October 3, 1786 ; Ugarte to Viceroy Bernardo de
Galvez, Chihuahua, October 12, 1786, AGN, Prov. Int., 13, fols. 405-406, 402-404.

25. Francisco de Guizarnotegui, propositions, Chihuahua, October 30, 1786, AGN,
Prov. Int., 13, fols. 51-53.

PRESIDIO SUPPLY 217

competition, 26 Guizarnotegui was awarded the contract on
February 17, 1787.

As this monopoly arrangement shortly came under an
investigation which yielded a large file of documents on the
whole supply problem, it is now possible to explore the subject
in some depth. The contract itself was composed of the follow-
ing ten conditions :

1) For a period of five years, dating from January 1, 1788,
the contractor would fill all of the orders of the presidios and
posts of Nueva Vizcaya and New Mexico for merchandise
from Vera Cruz, Puebla, Jalapa, Mexico City, and Queretaro.
He would charge the troops the original cost of these goods,
the purchasing commission of 4 per cent (which was custom-
arily charged by buyers at Mexico City) , the freightage, losses
in transit, and excise taxes.

2) He would transport this merchandise from Mexico City
to Chihuahua at the old freight rate of 16 reales per arroba
(two dollars per twenty-five pounds) , which was 4 reales less
than the rate then current.

3) He would also transport the goods from Chihuahua to
the individual presidios and posts, except that of Santa Fe, at
4 reales per arroba below the current rate. The New Mexican
garrison would receive its deliveries at Chihuahua, as had
been its custom in the past, and the others could also collect
theirs at the same place if they wished to employ their own
mules and thus save on the freightage cost from Chihuahua
to their stations.

4) In order to make his deliveries on schedule, the con-
tractor would have to receive all of the order lists of the com-
panies at the beginning of each year and with the endorse-
ments of the Comandante Inspector.

5) The merchandise, on reaching Chihuahua and before
departing for the presidios and posts, would have to be in-
spected by the contractor and the Comandante Inspector, or

26. Cuerpo de Comercio, propositions, Chihuahua, January 10, 1787 ; Guizarnotegui,
propositions, Chihuahua, January 27, 1787 ; Cuerpo de Comercio, propositions, February
3, 1787 ; Guizarnotegui, propositions, February 7, 1787 ; Cuerpo de Comercio, waiver,
February 14, 1787, AGN, Prov. Int., 13, fols. 63-67, 73-75, 77-78, 90-94, 104.

218 NEW MEXICO HISTORICAL REVIEW

their agents, and be certified by them as having met the speci-
fications in the order lists.

6) The contractor would also provide produce from the
province of Michoacan, purchasing this at Chihuahua at the
lowest prices available and delivering it to the presidios and
posts at that cost plus a commission of 2V& per cent.

7) He would deliver the Michoacan goods to the presidios
and posts at 4 reales per arroba less than the current freight
rate except, as indicated in the 3rd condition, that New
Mexico's presidio would receive its orders at Chihuahua and
that the other garrisons could receive theirs there if they so
desired.

8) In order to make his purchases in time for the sched-
uled deliveries, the contractor would make a prudent estimate
from the order lists of the costs of the goods, commissions,
excise taxes, and freightage, and one year in advance of his
purchases funds in the amount of the total estimate would be
delivered to him by the royal treasurer at Chihuahua in war-
rants against the treasury at Mexico City.

9) When the merchandise was purchased and delivered
at Chihuahua accompanied by the original invoices, the excise
tax would be paid at the customs house there, and the total
account for the year would be liquidated. The treasurer at
Chihuahua would then pay the contractor or receive from him
whatever was due either in case the original estimates and
actual costs did not balance. The treasurer and the respective
paymasters would then discount from the payroll of each
presidial and patrol company the amount it owed for the
merchandise received.

10) The presidios would be responsible for furnishing the
contractor's mule trains with competent military escort on
the roads to and from their stations from El Pasaje onward
for merchandise purchased in Vera Cruz, Jalapa, Puebla,
Mexico City, and Queretaro and from Chihuahua onward for
the goods of Michoacan. The contractor would request these
escorts fifteen or twenty days in advance, and they would be
provided without delay so as to avoid the expense of detain-
ing the trains. If the contractor should be unable to make all
of the deliveries beyond El Pasaje in a single trip, escorts

PRESIDIO SUPPLY 219

would be furnished for as many as two others. 27

From almost the very beginning Guizarnotegui's opera-
tions in provisioning the presidios were embarassed by official
intervention and financial difficulties. Before the contractor
was able to cash the warrants issued for his purchases, pay-
ment on them was suspended by the royal treasury at Mexico
City, and the entire contract was held in abeyance pending
the result of a full-scale investigation. The Comandante Gen-
eral, it developed, had failed to go through proper channels
in letting it. During the previous year the King had reformed
the administrative system for his realms, and under this new
order such military and treasury matters as the provisioning
of the troops were supposedly under the jurisdiction of new
officials known as intendants. The Intendant of Durango
should have been consulted before Guizarnotegui's contract
was approved. Eventually the contract was approved, by the
Viceroy on September 10, 1788, and by the King on June 8,
1789, but it was not until September of the latter year that
Guizarnotegui was assured that treasury funds would be
issued for his purchases. 28

Meanwhile, for two and a half years, Guizarnotegui oper-
ated without either a valid contract or adequate funds and
had to purchase the provisions for the troops on his own
credit. In so doing he had to pay the wholesale merchants at
Mexico City a premium of 9 per cent for credit extended to
January, when the troops were paid, and an additional 5 per
cent for what was still due thereafter. Being unwilling to
absorb this loss himself, Guizarnotegui merely added it to the
total bill against the troops. 29 The Comandante General ap-
proved this procedure for the deliveries of the first year, 1788,
but he instructed Guizarnotegui that thereafter when funds
were not delivered to him in advance, he should obtain his
credit at 5 per cent interest by guaranteeing the salaries of
the troops as his security. This Guizarn6tegui did not do be-

27. Contract with Guizarnotegui, Chihuahua, February 17, 1787, AGN, Prov. Int., 13,
fob. 106-111.

28. Viceroy Manuel Antonio Flores to Ugarte, Mexico City, September 10, 1788 ;
Royal order, Aranjuez, June 8, 1789 ; Flores to Ugarte, Mexico City, September 20, 1789 ;
AGN, Prov. Int., 13, fols. 166-167, 203, 204-205. The documentation on the jurisdictional
dispute appears in folios 1-207.

29. Guizarnotegui to the Viceroy, Mexico City, April 16, 1789, AGN, Prov. Int., 18,
fols. 181-182.

220 NEW MEXICO HISTORICAL REVIEW

cause, as he said, the merchants at Mexico City, knowing his
contract still lacked official approval, questioned the validity
of such a guarantee. 30 He therefore continued to pay 9 per
cent for the first year of his credit and an additional 5 per cent
for extension beyond that term and also to charge this inter-
est to the account of the troops. 31

For the provisions of the Presidio of Santa Fe for the first
year, 1788, delivered to its paymaster at Chihuahua in Febru-
ary, 32 Guizarnotegui presented a bill for 17,655 pesos and 6!/2
reales and received from the paymaster 13,648 pesos. This left
a balance due of 4,007 pesos and 6 1/2 reales plus an interest of
5 per cent for the extension of credit amounting to 200 pesos
and 3 reales. According to Guizarnotegui's accounting, there-
fore, the presidio still owed him 4,208 pesos and IVa reales:

Cost of merchandise purchased in Jalapa, Puebla,

Mexico City, and Queretaro ................ 13,357 pesos, 2% reales

Purchasing commission (4%) .... 534 " 2% "

Premium for credit for

one year (9%) ...................... 1,202 " Itt "

Freightage (437 arrobas and 21%
pounds at 18 reales
per arroba) ............................ 985 " 1

Cost of merchandise from Michoacan

purchased at Chihuahua .............. 1,576 " 7% "

Total 17,655 " 6%

Less payment on account,

February 19, 1788, 13,648

Balance due 4,007 " 6%

Premium for extended credit (5%) .. 200 " 3

Balance due January 1, 1789 4,208 1%

Since the amount paid in February was well over the price
of the goods from Jalapa, Puebla, Mexico City and Queretaro
(13,357 pesos) , and since this merchandise was purchased on

30. Jus to Pastor de Madariaga (Gui/.arnoteKui's agent) to Ugarte, Chihuahua,
[July, 1789], AGN, Prov. Int., 13 fob. 245-269.

31. Presidio of Santa Fe, account against Guizarnotegui for supplies furnished in
1788, 1789, and 1790, Santa Fe. July 8, 1790, SANM, archive 1084a.

32. Presidio of Santa Fe, resume of invoice received from Guizarn6tegui on Febru-
ary 19, 1788, in ibid.

PRESIDIO SUPPLY 221

credit in October of 1787, the interest of 9 per cent should not
have run for an entire year but only for four months, until
February, when the paymaster received the goods and paid
the contractor. Therefore, when the Presidial Company of
Santa Fe audited the account, it claimed a reduction of 801
pesos and 2 5 / 6 reales from the bill, as interest unjustly
charged for two-thirds of a year. By the same token, it
claimed an additional 40 pesos and */2 real as the correspond-
ing overcharge for interest on the amount due after the first
of the year. Moreover, since the contract stipulated a freight
rate of 16 reales per arroba and Guizarnotegui had charged
18 reales, the presidio claimed an overcharge of 109 pesos and
3% reales on this item. And finally, Guizarnotegui had
charged the troops 500 pesos for 5,000 loaves of brown sugar
from Michoacan, at the rate of ten loaves to the peso, while
on the same occasion he had sold the same commodity to Jose
Ortiz, a merchant of Santa Fe, at the rate of 18 to the peso.
Therefore, the presidio claimed, a further reduction from its
bill of 222 pesos and 2 reales was in order. Altogether its
claims against Guizarnotegui's bill for the year amounted to
1,173 pesos and 1 Vi2 reales. 33

For the second year, 1789, Guizarnotegui presented the
New Mexican garrison with a higher and even more question-
able bill: 34

Cost of merchandise purchased in Jalapa, Puebla,

Mexico City, and Queretaro 14,166 pesos, 3% reales

Purchasing commission (4%) .... 566 " 5 "
Premium for credit for

one year (9%) 1,325 " 7% "

Freightage (547 arrobas and 11
pounds at 16 reales
per arroba) 1,094 " 7 "

17,153 pesos, 6% reales
Cost of merchandise from Michoacan

purchased at Chihuahua 1,737 " 6% "

Total 18,891 pesos, 5% reales

33. Presidio of Santa Fe, notations to same, in ibid.

34. Presidio of Santa Fe, resume of invoice received from Guizarnotegui on February
3, 1789, in ibid.

222 NEW MEXICO HISTORICAL REVIEW

When these deliveries were made at Chihuahua in Febru-
ary, 1789, the paymaster of Santa Fe provided reimburse-
ment in the amount of 16,300 pesos and 2% real, leaving a
balance of 2,591 pesos and 2% reales due. The paymaster
then made out a promissory note to Guizarn6tegui for 2,656
pesos and % real to cover this and the interest due on the
balance. 33

After auditing this bill the Santa Fe company took sev-
eral exceptions to it. The premium of 9 per cent for credit had
been charged not only on the original cost of the goods in the
interior cities but also on the purchasing commission as well,
which had not been the case in the bill of the previous year.
The presidio thus claimed 47 pesos and 3 reales for the over-
charge. Further, as in the previous bill, this interest was
charged for an entire year whereas the purchases had been
made on October 31, 1788, and the reimbursement on Febru-
ary 3, 1789. Therein lay an overcharge of 949 pesos and 1 7 /i2
real. Likewise the interest on what was still due should have
been reduced by 47 pesos and 4 reales. Finally, in comparing
the prices Guizarnotegui charged the presidio for Michoacan
goods with what he had charged Ortiz and another merchant
of Santa Fe, Jose Rafael Sarracino, the troops claimed an-
other 234 pesos and 73^ reales. In all, these claims for the
year amounted to 1,279 pesos and Vs real. 36

For 1790, the third year of the contract, Guizarnotegui's
bill, for some reason, did not include freightage on the mer-
chandise purchased in the interior or the cost of the goods
from Michoacan : 37

Cost of merchandise purchased in Jalapa, Puebla,

Mexico City, and Queretaro 13,010 pesos, 2V 2 reales

Purchasing commission (4%) .... 520 " 3% "

13,630 " 5%
Less amount issued in advance

of purchases 5,943 " 4%

Balance due 7,587

35. Ibid.

86. Presidio of Santa Fe, notations to same, in ibid.

37. Presidio of Santa Fe, resume of invoice received from Guizarnotegui on February
10, 1790, in ibid.

PRESIDIO SUPPLY 223

Premium for credit for

one year (9%) 682 " 6V 2 "

Total 8,269 pesos, 7% reales

The bill for the Michoacan goods was apparently made out
separately, but when Guizarnotegui presented the above at
Chihuahua, he received 5,171 pesos and 7^ reales, leaving a
balance due on January 1, 1791, of 3,098 pesos and y% real.
To this was to be added 154 pesos and 7 1 / reales as the 5 per
cent interest for the extension of credit on the new balance.

Once again the presidio challenged Guizarnotegui's charge
of 9 per cent interest on the purchasing commission in addi-
tion to the original cost of the goods, claiming for this item a
reduction of 46 pesos and 6 2 / 3 reales. And again it sought
to reduce the period of this interest from a full year to less
than four months, since the credit ran only from October 14,
1789, to February 10, 1790. For this latter the claim amounted
to 242 pesos and % real, and for the corresponding over-
charge on the 5 per cent premium, 12 pesos and 5 / 6 real. The
presidio also challenged the purchasing commission for goods
bought at Puebla, since this was covered by that paid in Mex-
ico City, and also the freightage from Puebla to Mexico City,
which had not been charged in previous years. These claims
amounted to 134 pesos and 5% reales. A comparison of Guiz-
arnotegui's prices on worsted goods bought at Queretaro and
blankets at Puebla justified a further claim of 148 pesos and
3 l /2 reales. The total amount of the bill for Michoacan goods
does not appear either in this billing or in the presidio's
claims, but the latter, by comparing Guizarnotegui's prices
with those at which the Chihuahua merchants Francisco
Elguea and Savino de la Pedrueza sold them to Ortiz and
Sarracino of Santa Fe, itemized overcharges totaling 59
pesos and 4% reales for brown sugar loaves and soap from
that province. Thus, for 1790 the claims amounted to 643
pesos and 5% reales. 38

The total claims for the three years, which the presidio
filed against Guizarnotegui on July 8, 1790, amounted to 3,095

38. Presidio of Santa Fe, notations to same, in ibid.

224 NEW MEXICO HISTORICAL REVIEW

pesos and 7 1 / 6 reales, or approximately 6 per cent of the
total bill for that period. Nor was this the full extent of the
contractor's grief. There were the claims of the seven presi-
dios and four patrol posts of Nueva Vizcaya. And even before
the garrisons audited their bills, the Comandante Inspector
and his agents at Chihuahua were scrutinizing Guizarnote-
gui's deliveries.

Only minor adjustments had to be made in the deliveries
of 1788, but in the following year complications set in. Guiz-
arnotegui's mule trains from the interior arrived at Chi-
huahua just as the military escorts from Carrizal, San Eliz-
eario, and Santa Fe were preparing to return to their posts.
This left no time for an inspection of the goods at Chihuahua
for those presidios and so these packages were not opened
or properly inspected until they were out of the contractor's
hands and beyond the scrutiny of the Comandante Inspector's
agents. 39 The best the Comandante General could do was to
call upon the paymasters of these three presidios to send back
to Chihuahua at a later date samples of the goods thus re-
ceived. On the basis of these samples the quality, quantity, and
pricing of the original deliveries were then reviewed by three
merchants: one representing the interests of the presidios,
one those of the contractor, and the third acting as referee
when disputes arose. 40 Guizarnotegui complained that it was
improper to judge the yardage goods he had delivered from
remnants submitted by the presidios, for there was no guar-
antee that they were taken from the material actually deliv-
ered and also because a remnant of a piece of dry goods might
be cut from the end of a bolt and thus be inferior in quality to
the whole piece. 41 Nevertheless, the inspection continued
under these circumstances. Samples of Guizarnotegui's deliv-
eries were compared with similar merchandise in the shops
at Chihuahua, and the corresponding invoices were checked
for price variation. In some instances the goods delivered by
Guizarnotegui could not be matched with those in the local

88. Ayudante Inspector Diego de Borica to Ugarte, Chihuahua, February 17, 1789,
AGN, Prov. Int., 13, fol. 212.

40. Ugarte, decree, Chihuahua, May 18, 1789, AGN, Prov. Int., 18, fob. 234-235.

41. Guizarnotegui to Borica [Mexico City, January, 1790], AGN, Prov. Int., 18,
fol. 307.

PRESIDIO SUPPLY 225

shops, but where comparisons were possible, it was found that
Guizarnotegui had overcharged the troops on twenty cate-
gories of yardage goods. 42

Of greater concern was the matter of the 9 per cent pre-
mium which Guizarnotegui had added to the bill to cover the
purchases he had to make on credit. Although he had no
authorization from his contract to charge the troops for this
credit, Guizarnotegui was hardly liable for this burden
himself, for it had arisen only from the failure of the treasury
officers to fulfill their obligation to supply him with adequate
funds a full year in advance of his scheduled deliveries. Since
both parties had failed to comply strictly with their contrac-
tual obligations, and since the contract itself was not legally
binding until September, 1789, the whole question of this
liability was left to the decision of the Comandante General.
Finally on April 7, 1790, a ruling was handed down from that
quarter :

Guizarnotegui would be compensated for the premium of
9 per cent only for the purchases he made on credit between
July 1 and December 31, 1787; that is, for the merchandise
he delivered early in 1788. For his purchases between January
1, 1788, and December 31, 1789, which were delivered early
in 1789 and 1790, he was entitled to only 5 per cent for his
credit. And for 1791 and 1792, the remaining two years of his
contract (now that it was fully in force) , he was prohibited
from charging any interest at all, even when funds were not
supplied a full year in advance, as long as he should receive
this money in ample time to make his deliveries on schedule.
This, the Comandante General declared, was the true spirit
of the 8th condition of the contract. As for the claims against
Guizarnotegui in the liquidation of his accounts for the first
three years of the contract, these would be determined by the
merchants already appointed by himself and the Comandante
Inspector as agents and referee. 43

At this point, April 7, 1790, the file of documents accumu-
lated during the investigation ends. There is nothing there of

42. Diego de Borica, Joseph Antonio de Iribarren (representing Guizarnotegui),
and Manuel Ruiz (representing the troops), Estado de Precios, Chihuahua, March 17,
1790, AGN, Prov. Int., 13, fol. 319.

43. Ugarte, decree, Chihuahua, April 7, 1790, AGN, Prov. Int., 13, fol. 380.

226 NEW MEXICO HISTORICAL REVIEW

later date to indicate how this ruling affected Guizarnotegui.
However, from the presidial records at Santa Fe, it is appar-
ent that Guizarnotegui did not continue as the contractor for
the remainder of his five-year term. In acknowledging receipt
of the New Mexican presidio's claims against Guizarn6tegui
for the first three years, the Comandante General in July,
1790, referred to him as the "former contractor." 44 Then,
three months later, he distributed to the presidios copies of
a new contract which had just been drawn up at Chihuahua. 45
In this new arrangement not one but nine merchants, all
members of the mercantile guild of Chihuahua, undertook to
supply the presidios for the single year 1791. The stipulations
of this were so much less generous to the troops than those in
Guizarnotegui's contract that it might well be presumed that
the former contractor had cancelled his service on his own
free will and that the Comandante General had been forced
to seek other, less advantageous, arrangements because of the
press of time. At any rate the contract for 1791 provided that
the nine merchants would supply the troops with whatever
merchandise of prime necessity from Castile, Puebla, Mexico
City, and Queretaro that they carried in their stores; that
they would furnish these at original cost plus 6 per cent ; that
the troops had to assume the 9 per cent premium whenever
purchases had to be made on credit, the 4 per cent commission
charged by purchasing agents at Mexico City, the excise
taxes, and the packing expenses ; that the merchants would
bear the losses incurred in transit, but that the troops would
have to provide escorts for the trains from the interior beyond
El Pasaje and as far as Chihuahua; that the contractors
would supply the troops with the produce of Michoacan at 8
per cent above what they had to pay for it at Chihuahua ; that
the troops would have to furnish the contractors with pur-
chasing funds in warrants issued at Chihuahua and cashable
at Mexico City ; and that the deliveries of the provisions to

44. Governor Fernando de la Concha to Ugarte, Santa Fe, July 12, 1790 ; Coman-
dante General Pedro de Nava to De la Concha, Chihuahua, July 26, 1790, SANM, archives
1085a, 1137.

45. Contract with Pedro Ramos de Verea, Joseph Antonio de Iribarren, Diego
Ventura Marquez, Ventura Do-Porto, Savino Diego de la Pedruesa, Francisco Manuel
de Elguea, Andres Manuel Martinez, Pablo de Ochoa, and Pedro Yrigoyen (certified
copy), Chihuahua. Ortober 18. 1790, SANM, archive 1120.

PRESIDIO SUPPLY 227

the paymasters would be made at Chihuahua rather than at
the individual presidios. 46

The records of the Presidio of Santa Fe do not indicate
how this arrangement worked out for the year 1791 or how
the garrison was provisioned thereafter. Some conclusions
on the presidio supply problem in general, however, can be
drawn from the rather full records of the investigation of
Guizarnotegui's contract and its antecedents.

In the first place, it is abundantly evident that the authori-
ties were sincerely concerned with the welfare of the presidial
soldiers during the eighteenth century, and that it was with
their interests in mind rather than with those of the royal
treasury or of the economy of the provinces that the supply
system was reformed several times. After centralizing all
purchases in the presidial captains and provincial governors,
the higher authorities established price-ceilings on the pro-
visions, through the Reglamento of 1729. When this measure
failed to provision the troops adequately, fairly, and econom-
ically, they promulgated the Reglamento of 1772, which
turned the purchases over to elected paymasters. Then, as
these non-commissioned officers failed to provide goods
cheaply enough for the troops without incurring bankruptcy,
the government, beginning in 1781, let contracts to private
merchants, each supplying one or two presidios. These con-
tracts failed to satisfy either the troops or the merchants
themselves, and so after reverting to the paymaster system
for one year, 1787, the authorities let a monopoly contract for
the several presidios and posts of Nueva Vizcaya and New
Mexico to a single merchant for the years 1788 through 1792.
This arrangement also proved unsatisfactory to both parties,
and in 1790, as we have seen, it was terminated, and a new
monopoly was let for 1791 to a group of nine merchants.
Each of these reforms was a conscientious attack on the prob-
lem even though all seem to have failed somewhat in their
ultimate purpose.

The Guizarnotegui contract broke down for a number of
reasons. First, owing to a purely jurisdictional dispute, the
contract was not fully in force for the first two and a half

46. Ibid.

228 NEW MEXICO HISTORICAL REVIEW

years. Second, because of this, the eighth condition of the
contract (guaranteeing the contractor adequate purchasing
funds a year in advance) , was not fulfilled. Third, as the con-
tractor was forced to purchase on credit, a dispute arose over
interest rates. Finally, the Comandante General's ruling on
this question and on the advancement of funds was a viola-
tion of the letter, if not the spirit, of the contract. The con-
tractor himself was not blameless in this controversy, how-
ever, for his invoices for Santa Fe's presidio show not only
shoddy accounting but also apparent intent to defraud. Not
only did Guizarnotegui attempt to charge interest for an
entire year when he was reimbursed after only four months,
but he also attempted to charge it on his purchasing commis-
sion as well as on the cost of the purchases themselves. Some
of his prices were out of line with those current at the same
place and time, and this was especially true of the produce of
Michoacan. According to his contract, he was supposed to
purchase these goods at Chihuahua at the lowest prices avail-
able. In fact, however, he bought a large number of these
items from his own store there and at prices well above what
other local merchants were charging. 47

Another significant conclusion may be drawn from analyz-
ing Guizarnotegui's invoices. The itemization of merchandise
delivered shows that the supplies ordered were not primarily
for the military equipment of the soldiers but rather for the
civilian clothing of their families. The invoice for New Mex-
ico's presidio in 1789 illustrates this point. The total bill of
goods from Jalapa, Puebla, Mexico City, and Queretaro for
that year (excluding packing costs, fees, commissions, taxes,
interest, and freightage) amounted to 14,029 pesos. Of this
6,391 pesos (45.5% of the whole) went for dry goods bought
by the yard or whole piece ; 2,862 pesos (20.5% ) for clothing
(mostly feminine) ; 2,739 pesos (19.5%) for blankets and
other bedding; 1,214 (8.5%) for miscellaneous goods; 540
pesos (4.0%) for hardware; and only 283 pesos (2.0%) for
saddlery and other military equipment. Of the goods from
Michoacan, amounting to 1,737 pesos, 545 pesos (31.5%)

47. Presidio of Santa Fe, notations to invoice received February 10, 1790, SANM,
archive 1084a.

PRESIDIO SUPPLY 229

went for soap ; 470 pesos (27.0% ) for brown sugar; and 366
pesos (21.0%) for refined sugar. This left only 356 pesos
(20.5%) for miscellaneous goods including those of military
utility. 48 Arms and ammunition were customarily purchased
by the paymasters directly from the warehouses maintained
by the royal treasury while horses, mules, fodder, and most
of the foodstuffs were bought from the neighboring farms
and ranches. 49 Therefore, the merchant contracts seem to
have had little bearing on the military equipment of the pre-
sidial forces. In providing the clothing and household needs of
their families, however, they were vital to troop morale.

Finally, it may properly be assumed that the several re-
forms during the eighteenth century brought about some im-
provement in the welfare of presidial troops and their fam-
ilies. Their extreme poverty, a matter of frequent complaint
in earlier years, seems to have been somewhat mitigated by
1789, judging by the luxuries included in their orders for
that year. Imported fabrics (silk, British and Flemish linen,
French velvet, Rouen, Pontevy, Holland cloth, Cambaya, and
English baize) came to 3,345 pesos or almost 24% of the total
bill. 50 If the salaries of the troops were still inadequate to
cover their expenses, it was due in no small part to their own
conspicuous consumption.

48. Guizarnotegui, invoice for the Presidio of Santa Fe, Mexico City, October 31,
1788, AGN, Prov. Int., 13, fols. 272-274 ; Presidio of Santa Fe, resume of and notations
to invoice received from Guizarnotegui on February 3, 1789, SANM, archive 1084a.

49. Pedro Galindo Navarro (Auditor of Provincias Internas) to Ugarte, Chihuahua,
February 13, 1787, AGN, Prov. Int., 13, fols. 94-102.

60. Guizarn6tegui, invoice for the Presidio of Santa Fe, Mexico City, October 31,
1788, AGN, Prov. Int. 13, fols. 272-274.
[NEW MEXICO HISTORICAL REVIEW, Vol. 36, No. 3. July, 1961]

FRANK BOND: GENTLEMAN SHEEPHERDER
OF NORTHERN NEW MEXICO, 1883-1915

By FRANK H. GRUBBS
Bond & Weist

AS G. W. Bond & Bro., Wagon Mound, entered its seventh
year of business, the advantages of running large flocks
of sheep in the area to the southeast were becoming apparent.
This rolling plateau area in San Miguel and Leonard Wood
Counties drained into the Canadian River on the east and the
Pecos on the west, providing an abundance of good water and
excellent grazing. 1 The Bonds had already acquired the Tru-
jillo, Mogote, Vermejo, and Esteros ranches, and not long
thereafter they had followed this up by purchasing almost
63,000 acres of the Preston Beck Grant plus the Atencio and
La Posta ranches east of Cabra. 2

As the population of partidarios swelled, and as the
number of independent flockmasters in this vast country
increased, there emerged a distinct requirement for a mer-
cantile store in that area, not only to supply their wants but
also to provide better supervision of the sheep investment
and to establish a local operating base from which to buy
wool. Up to that time, Las Vegas, Wagon Mound, and
Springer had enjoyed much of the trade from the east central
section of the state, but the Chicago, Rock Island, and Pacific
Railroad was approaching the area from the east, and the
El Paso and Northeastern was coming in from the south.
Unless something were done a significant part of that trade
would certainly be lost. A new branch was the obvious solu-
tion, and so in the fall of 1899 3 a new G. W. Bond & Bro. store

1. Copy Book No. 635, January 27, 1909, p. 487 (in the flies of Bond & Wiest,
Cuervo, New Mexico). Source material at Cuervo cited hereafter as Holbrook Papers.

2. Copy Book, March 7, 1913, Holbrook Papers, loc. cit.

3. The earliest account in the first ledger is dated August, 1899, and the first
appearance of Cabra Springs on the G. W. Bond & Bro. letterhead is dated January 1,
1900.

230

FRANK BOND 231

was opened at Cabra, New Mexico, in San Miguel County
just twenty-two miles north of Santa Rosa. 4

The reason that Cabra was chosen is obscure, but it was
a stop on the Pony Express, 5 and considering the Bond's em-
phasis on efficient mail communication and the necessity for
rapid transmission of information between their widely sepa-
rated stores, it would seem to have been a logical choice.
Some weight was also most certainly given to the possibility
that the railroad would actually come through Cabra and
bring to fruition their plans for exploiting the opportunities
thus provided. Their subsequent move to Cuervo when the
railroad bypassed Cabra seems to confirm this as a considera-
tion in their choice of Cabra as a store location.

The new business was financed by $10,000 from the
Wagon Mound store, 6 so the parties interested directly in this
expansion were the Wagon Mound partners, George and
Frank Bond. However, in 1899 Archie MacArthur was re-
ceiving 5 per cent of the Wagon Mound profits, so his interest
in the Cabra store is not to be discounted.

It appears that the first manager of this store was A. H.
Long who was later to be associated with the Bonds in the
Rosa Mercantile Company. 7 While it later became the general
policy upon the opening of a new store to give the manager a
sizable share of the business, this was not done at Cabra as,
indeed, it had not been done at Wagon Mound.

Very little is known of the Cabra business operation, but
by the summer of 1900 George Bond had decided to make a
change at Cabra and replace Long with Andrew W. Wiest
who was willing to take the managership for one-half the
profits. 8 An account for Andy Wiest first appears in the ledger
on September 5, 1900, and so it would seem that the change

4. U. S., Department of the Interior, General Land Office, Map of Territory of New
Mexico. 1" = 12 mi., 1903. Bond's writings refer variously to "Cabra," and "Cabra
Springs." It has also been observed as "Cobra Springs" in some published material, but
the form, "Cabra," used here appears on the map cited and is considered authoritative.

5. Interview with J. S. Holbrook, Cuervo, New Mexico, March 1, 1958.

6. Records, toe. cit.

7. This has not been absolutely substantiated, but examination of the meager cor-
respondence points strongly to this conclusion. The Rosa Mercantile Co. is discussed
infra, chap. xii.

8. Letter of G. W. Bond to Frank Bond, June 13, 1900, Bond Papers, toe. cit.

232 NEW MEXICO HISTORICAL REVIEW

was promptly made. At the end of that year, the Cabra store
owed the Wagon Mound store just over $14,000. 9

With the advent of Andy Wiest in 1900 as an equal part-
ner with the Bonds, the firm name was changed from G. W.
Bond & Bro. to Bond & Wiest, the name it has borne now for
fifty-eight years. Wiest's share in the business was without
any investment of his own, but by the end of 1901, his first
full year at the helm, Wiest had $3,045.41 in the business
which represented his share of the profits. 10 The first financial
picture of Bond & Wiest that can be reconstructed today is
presented in Table 30.

TABLE 30

BOND & WIEST BALANCE SHEET

January 10, 1902

Resources

Book Accounts $ 4,859.00

Notes 294.84

Sheep on hand 2,524.59

Wool 9,824.90

Cattle 8.00

Cash 210.90

Merchandise 6,575.39

Total $24,297.62

Liabilities

Due Sundry Persons $ 343.93

Due G. W. Bond & Bro 17,844.88

Due A. W. Wiest, profits 3,045.41

Due G. W. Bond & Bro., profits 3,045.42

Undivided profits 17.98

Total $24,297.62

The last firm evidence of the store at Cabra is an invoice
dated September 10, 1901. 11 At some time between this date
and the end of 1903, the Bond & Wiest store was moved to
Cuervo, New Mexico, a small community about fifteen miles
east of Santa Rosa. 12 However, there is evidence to indicate
that the move actually took place in 1902.

9. Records, loc. dt.

10. Ibid.

11. Copy Book, September 10, 1901, p. 185, Holbrook Papers, loc. cit.

12. The "Old Observer," in describing a visit to the Bond & Wiest store, refers to
its location in "Cuervito." He also referred, erroneously, to Wiest as "Mr. Frank Wiest."
"The Old Observer in New Mexico," The American Shepherd's Bulletin, XI, No. 6 (June,
1906), 525 (49).

FRANK BOND 233

The move to Cuervo was almost certainly motivated by
the arrival of the railroad which came not through Cabra
but through Tucumcari, Cuervo, and Santa Rosa. 13 The
Bonds were not alone in quickly realizing the advantages to
be gained by establishing themselves in a competitive trans-
portation position, for the Charles Ilfeld Company made a
coincident move in 1904 and established a branch in Santa
Rosa. 14

The Cuervo store was first opened in temporary quar-
ters, 15 building construction was begun, and the Cabra store
was closed permanently. The new store building was com-
pleted in 1903, and before the year was out the floor space
had to be more than doubled by building a warehouse. This
brought the building investment to $4,827.51 at the end of
December. 16

The profit-sharing arrangement between the Bonds and
Andy Wiest was undisturbed until 1904 when the Bond &
Wiest Corporation was formed with George W. Bond as
president, Frank Bond as vice-president, and Andrew W.
Wiest as secretary and treasurer. 17 "Having incorporated
this new company for the purpose of handling their business
as a corporation rather than as a firm," 18 the new corpora-
tion bought the assets of the old firm of G. W. Bond & Bro.
by giving 12,501 shares of stock to Frank Bond, 12,500 to
G. W. Bond, and 24,999 shares to A. W. Wiest. 19 There were
a total of 50,000 shares issued.

13. Interview with J. S. Holbrook.

Belying the present appearance of Cuervo, the prospects and hopes at that time for
expansion of the community are evident from a reference in a letter written by Andy
Wiest in which he referred to the "Gross-Kelly Addition to the Town of Cuervo." Copy
Book No. 635, p. 352, Holbrook Papers, loc. eit.

The railroad actually arrived in Santa Rosa on Christmas Day in 1901. Interview
with C. H. Stearns, Albuquerque, April 12, 1958.

14. Copy Book No. 71, August 7, 1902, p. 43 and August 12, 1902, p. 116, in the
Charles Ilfeld Business Collection (University of New Mexico Library, Albuquerque),
cited by William J. Parish, unpublished MS, chap, xi, p. 29.

15. Interview with J. S. Holbrook.

16. Records, loc. tit. ; Letter of G. W. Bond to Franklin Bond, September 2, 1903,
Bond Papers, lac. cit. George always addressed his brother as "Franklin," both orally
and in correspondence. He was the only one given this privilege.

17. Minutes of First Stockholders' Meeting, April 21, 1904, Holbrook Papers, loc.
cit. Note also that the A. MacArthur Company, Wagon Mound, was organized as a
corporation just two months later in the same year. Supra, chap. iv.

18. Minutes of Special Meeting, April 21, 1904, Holbrook Papers, loc. cit.

19. Ibid.

234 NEW MEXICO HISTORICAL REVIEW

This division of the stock gave the Bonds a one-share
control of the company. At the time of incorporation, the
Bonds had an interest in the business of just under $14,000,
including undivided profits, and Wiest's comparable interest
amounted to slightly more than $10,000. 20 The additional
$15,000 needed by Wiest and the extra $11,000 needed by
the Bonds to take up their respective stock was placed on
the Bond & Wiest books as a receivable. These sums were
carried by the business until 1906 when accumulated profits
of $19,200 were divided and offset against these accounts to
reduce the loans to the stockholders. In 1908 additional ac-
cumulated profits of $27,000 were divided, thus finally enabl-
ing Wiest as well as the Bonds to liquidate all debts to the
company.

Until it was finally possible to get rid of the capital dilu-
tion that had been introduced at the time of the incorpora-
tion, nothing was realized by any of the participants in the
form of profit distribution. Wiest simply drew a store man-
ager's salary of $75 per month beginning in 1904 which was
raised to $100 in 1905 and to $125 in 1907. 21

The above corporate structure stood until 1906 when Joe
Holbrook, Jr., became a stockholder. Holbrook was a native
of Philadelphia whose father operated an Indian commissary
in Cimarron. He had been a sheepherder for a number of
years and then operated a meat market in Wagon Mound
before joining the Bonds at Cabra where he bought sheep,
worked in the store, and ran the post office. 22 The first positive
evidence of his presence is contained in his personal account
which was opened in December, 1901, 23 although one his-
torian dates his arrival several years earlier. 24 His rise, how-
ever, in the Bond organization began in 1906 when Andy
Wiest transferred 1,600 shares of stock to him. 25

20. Records, loc. cit.

21. Minutes of Board of Directors' Meeting, April 21, 1904, Holbrook Papers, loc.
cit. ; ibid., March 6, 1905 ; ibid.. March 4, 1907.

22. Interview with J. S. Holbrook ; Davis, op. cit., p. 1631.

23. Ledger, p. 613, Holbrook Papers, loc. cit.

24. Davis (loc. cit.) writes that Holbrook went to "Capos [sic] Springs" in 1895 and
bought sheep for G. W. Bond & Bro. The Bonds were probably buying and renting sheep
in the Cabra area that early even though the store was not opened until 1899, but the
dates and sequence of events in Davis' biography are self -contradictory.

25. Minutes of Board of Directors' Meeting, March 3, 1913, Holbrook Papers, loc. cit.

FRANK BOND 235

Andy Wiest's services to the Cuervo store began to be
divided when Archie MacArthur was stricken at Wagon
Mound in 1911 and Wiest began to manage both stores simul-
taneously. This gave Holbrook the opportunity to prove his
mettle during Wiest's increasingly frequent absences, and
in 1912 he was given deserved recognition by being appointed
assistant general manager, although it is probable that by
this time Wiest was in Wagon Mound so much of the time
that Holbrook was for all practical purposes in complete
charge of the Cuervo operation. His services in this capacity
were apparently well appreciated for at the end of the year
George Bond sent him a bonus of an undisclosed but appar-
ently substantial amount an action without precedent in
the Bond system. 26

In 1913, Andy Wiest transferred 2,000 more shares of
stock to Holbrook just before a profit distribution. 27 The
nature of the conditions under which Wiest transferred his
holdings to Holbrook from time to time are undisclosed, 28 but
it was probably a private agreement inasmuch as Wiest and
Holbrook were double brothers-in-law, each having married
the other's sister. 29

By 1912 George Bond was living in Idaho and from a
practical viewpoint his functioning as president was greatly
diminished. He was for this reason dropped from the Board
of Directors, 30 and Frank Bond became president, Andy
Wiest was elected vice-president and Holbrook was named
secretary, treasurer, and general manager. 31 The following
year George and Frank Bond each transferred 1,000 shares
of stock to Holbrook, 32 and so at the end of 1915 the stock-
holdings stood as shown in Table 31.

26. Copy Book, January 20, 1913, Holbrook Papers, loc. cit.

27. Minutes of Board of Directors' Meeting, March 3, 1913, Holbrook Papers, loc. cit.

28. The stockholders' record of April 4, 1910, shows that 24,999 shares were jointly
owned by Wiest and Holbrook. It was not until 1913 that a correction, retroactive to
1906, was made showing Holbrook as owner of any shares in his own right. Ibid.

29. Interviews with J. E. Davenport, J. S. Holbrook, and C. H. Stearns. To further
complicate the family relationships, Holbrook's sister, Emma, married Manuel Paltenghe
at Wagon Mound. Ibid.

30. Records, loc. cit.

81. Minutes of Stockholders' Meeting, August 13, 1914, Holbrook Papers, loc. cit.

82. Minutes of Board of Directors' Meeting, April 10, 1915, Holbrook Papers, loc. cit.

236 NEW MEXICO HISTORICAL REVIEW

TABLE 31
STOCKHOLDERS, BOND & WIEST, 1915

Name Shares

G. W. Bond 11,500

Frank Bond 11,501

A. W. Wiest 21,399

J. Holbrook, Jr 5,600

Total 50,000

Throughout the period ending with the close of 1915,
merchandise not only represented the heaviest single invest-
ment of Bond & Wiest but also accounted for the largest
single item of profit. The division point on the railroad was
located just a few miles southwest, and the area was prosper-
ous. Cuervo was enjoying a period of expansion; there ap-
pears to have been no serious competition in the merchandise
field ; and the store was piled high with calico, flour, and all
the traditional inventory of a country store. The trade cus-
tomarily bought supplies for as long as an entire year at a
time, a heavy inventory of goods was needed to supply their
wants, and wholesale purchases of 10,000 pounds of beans
or 20,000 pounds of potatoes were not uncommon. 33 The year
end investments and gross profits on merchandise for the
period through 1915 are shown in Table 32.

Sales data for only a few years are available, but they
indicate a rapid rise from $44,230.32 in 1905 to a peak of
almost $96,000 in 1908. 34 By 1912 they had dropped to less
than $61,000, but in 1915 they were back up to about $79,000.
It was not unusual for more than half the sales to be on credit,
and as a result the accounts receivable carried by Bond &
Wiest were a sizable item. They are shown in Table 33. These
book accounts were regarded as being ninety per cent good,
which was a conservative estimate. In fact, the actual loss
was less than 4 per cent in 1912. 35

The merchandise business was closely associated with the
railroad, and in the early years Cuervo was a regular stop.
Not only was this an asset by way of widening the marketing

83. Copy Book, October 12, 1904, p. 135, Holbrook Papers, toe. eft.

34. Copy Book, February 11, 1906, p. 553, Holbrook Papers, toe tit. ; Record*, toe cit.

35. Ibid.

FRANK BOND 237

TABLE 32

MERCHANDISE INVENTORY
AND GROSS PROFIT ON MERCHANDISE

BOND & WIEST
(dollars in thousands)

Year

Inventory

Profit

1903
1904

1905
1906
1907
1908
1909
1910
1911
1912
1913
1914
1915

$ 8.1
12.2
12.9
14.4
26.4
25.1
25.6
24.5
20.3
18.9
17.8
17.5
18.5

$. . .

6.9

11.5
10.3

3.8
4.1
4.4
9.4

TABLE 33
BOND & WIEST BOOK ACCOUNTS"
(dollars in thousands)

Year

Amount

1903

$ 8.7
9.8
13.4
15.1
17.2
11.8
6.5
8.7
8.5
16.6
13.3
17.2
21.3

ion. In 1905

1904

1905

1906

1907

1908

1909

1910

1911

1912

1913

1914

1915

area but also it
Wiest wrote :

sharpened the price

competit

a. The very existence of these credit sales and book accounts lends a puzzling aspect
to Frank Bond's comment to George in 1911 that there was no credit business in Cuervo.
Letter Book No. 6, July 8, 1911.

238 NEW MEXICO HISTORICAL REVIEW

Profits do not show up as well as last year, yet we sold more
goods, our sales were 37412.00 dollars, accounting for this is
that there is too much strive [sic] for the trade that is tribu-
tary to the Rock Island, to hold or get the trade prices have to
be figured very close, we believe we are getting our share. 36

The regular train service to Cuervo was discontinued by the
end of 1904, 37 but it continued to be a flag stop and as such
provided adequate facilities to the Bonds for mail and mer-
chandise service. However, after December 1, 1910, the trains
no longer stopped there at all, 38 and the slow strangulation
of Cuervo began. This must have been a source of keen dis-
appointment for railroad accessibility had indeed been the
desideratum when the decision to locate in Cuervo was made
nine years previously. Certainly the effect on the merchan-
dise trade is obvious, for after 1910 it began a steady decline.
A number of efforts were made to regain the railroad stop
but without avail. In fact, while mail service did continue on
a drop-and-pick-up basis, it finally deteriorated to an in-
tolerable point, and the trains would roar through town
leaving the pouches on the pick-up arms. 39

Sheep and wool at Cuervo were, of course, the important
activities not only because their combined profits were sizable
but also because they were unaffected by the discontinuance
of passenger train service in 1910. In the first year of busi-
ness Bond & Wiest shipped 300,000 pounds of wool, and their
wool purchases for the first half of 1904 amounted to 125,000
pounds. 40 The Tucumcari Wool Scouring Mills were located
not too far away, 41 and doubtless some of the Bond & Wiest

36. Letter of A. W. Wiest to Frank Bond, February 11, 1906, Bond Papers, loc. cit.
Wiest seems to have had an aversion to the use of periods and upper case letters. The
substitution of commas for sentence periods and failure to capitalize first words makes
his correspondence particularly difficult to read. The Bonds, incidentally, did thia
occasionally also, but to a much lesser degree. Their contemporaries do not now recall
any particular reason for it.

37. Copy Book, January 24, 1905, p. 260, Holbrook Papers, loc. cit.

38. Ibid., December 23, 1910.

39. Copy Book, passim, Holbrook Papers, loc. cit.

40. Ibid., January 2, 1905, p. 289 ; ibid., July 27, 1904, p. 40.

41. Ibid., June 22, 1905, p. 362 ; ibid., n.d., p. 388. The Tucumcari Wool Scouring
Company was incorporated in 1904 for $25,000 by E. J. Ruling (infra, chap, viii), M. C.
Mechman, and Solomon Floersheim. It had a capacity of 16,000 pounds of wool per day.
The American Shepherd's Bulletin, IX, No. 6 (June, 1904), 698 (82).

FRANK BOND 239

wools were shipped there although Brown and Adams in
Boston were the largest buyers and for many years enjoyed
practically all of the Cuervo business. 42 The hold that Brown
and Adams had on the wools in that area was a source of
some annoyance to Holbrook who, after a visit by Mr. Adams,
was led to remark that Adams thought he had a cinch on the
Cuervo wools "but I will be D [sic] if we consign to him until
we know he has us cornered." 43 Later, of course, much of the
wool business was shifted to Hallowell, Jones, & Donald as
all the Bond business began to drift away from Brown and
Adams. 44

At one time the Bonds had up to 30,000 head of sheep on
the grant lands north of Cuervo, 45 but the Bond & Wiest sheep
were of a lesser order. In 1908 Bond & Wiest had 10,000
sheep on the Beck Grant, paying one cent per head per month
rent for grazing, 46 but in response to an inquiry Wiest wrote :

We know of no other land this side of the Pecos River where
5,000 head of sheep could be grazed, all available land is being
taken up very rapidly by the homesteaders, this means that the
sheep business in this section will soon be a thing of the past. 47

However, at the end of 1915, Bond & Wiest still had slightly
more than 11,000 sheep, of which 8,800 were on rent. 48

Pertinent investment and profit data on sheep and wool
are shown in Table 34.

A small but lively business was conducted at Cuervo in
hides, pelts, and cattle. Handling of hides and pelts seems
to have begun in 1903 and continued without much change
through 1915. Wiest mentions having over 2,000 pounds of

42. Letter Book No. 58, June 11, 1915, p. 460.

43. Copy Book, July 10, 1913, Holbrook Papers, loc. cit.

44. Letter Book No. 58, June 11, 1915, p. 460.

45. Cow Book, July 7, 1904, p. 9, Holbrook Papers, loc. eit.

46. Copy Book No. 635, January 27, 1909, p. 487, Holbrook Papers, loc. cit. Wiest
frequently called it the "Cabra Grant."

The rental contract on the grant with J. D. Hand expired in June, 1906, and the
grant was sold in 1907 to A. A. Jones, so it appears that Bond & Wiest were paying
Jones in 1908 for running sheep on the grant. Copy Book, February 10, 1906, p. 550,
Holbrook Papers, loc. cit. ; supra, pp. 80-81 ; interview with Harry R. Roberson,
Albuquerque, April 12, 1958.

47. Ibid.

48. Records, loc. cit.

240

NEW MEXICO HISTORICAL REVIEW

pelts and some goat skins on hand as early as 1904, 49 and the
following year Wiest arranged with the G. W. Bond & Bro.
Mercantile Company in Encino to send their hides to Cuervo
for shipment. 50 Wiest handled the hides without charge and
Encino thus gained a freight rate advantage by shipping
from Cuervo. 51 In addition, combining their shipments en-
abled them to confine their shipping to carload lots and thus
take a further freight rate advantage. 52 Wiest pursued this
with some vigor and worked with C. H. Stearns in Santa
Rosa in the same way. 53 Year end investments in hides gen-
erally were in the modest range of two to three hundred dol-
lars although at the end of 1906 over $1,000 worth were on
hand. The profit realized was likewise modest, averaging
about $500 a year with the exception of 1905 which doubled
that. 54

TABLE 34

BOND & WIEST SHEEP AND WOOL
(dollars in thousands)

Year

Year-end
Sheep Investment

Profit
on Sheep

Profit
on Wool

1903

$ 0.0

$. . .

$. . .

1904

2.3

. . .

...

1905

2.2

2.8

1.2

1906

8.1

...

...

1907

2.6

3.4

2.2

1908

11.1

.0

.0

1909

17.7

. . .

. . .

1910

15.2

...

...

1911

10.3

. . .

1912

12.4

3.1

3.2

1913

20.1

5.9

1.4

1914

20.8

5.0

1.6

1915

38.1

8.4

1.1

49. Copy Book, July 23, 1904, p. 83 ; Holbrook Papers, loe. cit.

50. Ibid., n.d., p. 544.

51. Ibid.

52. Copy Book No. 635, May 9, 1907, p. 216, Holbrook Papers, loe. cit.

63. Ibid. Stearns operated a general store in Santa Rosa and frequently ran sheep
with Wiest. He recalls selling hides and pelts with Wiest also but had Vorenberg come
down from Wagon Mound to sort and price them first. Interview with C. H. Stearns.

54. Records, loe. cit.

FRANK BOND 241

Cattle holdings were sporadic, being insignificant most
of the time. However, there were over $2,000 worth of cattle
in 1909 and slightly less in 1910. At the end of 1915, Bond
& Wiest had 157 head of cattle costing almost $6,000. 55 Profits
on the sale of cattle were insignificant.

Book accounts were carried by Bond & Wiest in amounts
ranging to $17,000, with the balance at the end of 1915 being
slightly more than $21,000. However, cash balances were
adequate at all times, accounts being maintained in both the
Santa Rosa bank and in the bank at El Paso, Texas, up
through 1912.

Overall profits show that the Cuervo branch was a good
investment, total net profits of the business being as shown
in Table 35.

TABLE 35

BOND & WIEST NET PROFITS
(dollars in thousands)

Year

Amount

1904

$ 7.0

1905

12.2

1906

8.3

1907

18.7

1908

13.3

1909

12.2

1910

5.6

1911

5.3

1912

11.8

1913

13.9

1914

14.4

1915

16.7

Notwithstanding the obviously profitable business at
Cuervo, there was early talk of selling out. 56 This first sug-
gestion in 1911 by Wiest was probably sparked by a sudden
necessity for him to spend a great deal of time at Wagon
Mound for prior to that time the general economic outlook in
that area had not been at all dismal. In fact, there had been
talk of expansion some years earlier when it was rumored
that the Bonds were putting in a business at Moriarty 57 and

65. Ibid.

56. Letter Book No. 6, July 8, 1911.

57. They never did.

242 NEW MEXICO HISTORICAL REVIEW

that Gross-Kelly was moving into Willard. 58 It was shortly
thereafter that Charles Ilfeld inquired about renting the
store building at Cabra, 59 probably with the thought of open-
ing a store. Bond refused.

Even at the same time that Andy Wiest was suggesting
that the Cuervo store be sold, a new industry was invading
Cuervo. The amole plant was being cut, dried in the sun for
sixty days, then shipped east for use in the manufacture of
rope. 60 Wiest did some trading in it ; he bought the dried plant
for seven dollars a ton and sold it for eight dollars. 61

The subject of selling out at Cuervo was dropped for the
time being, but Joe Holbrook brought it up again in 1915.
Frank Bond had no particular objection to selling if Hol-
brook wanted to, but he didn't believe that Holbrook was
really serious, feeling that the Cuervo store would continue
to pay as well as the other stores. 62 Holbrook was by this time
discouraged at the declining sheep and wool prospects. Bond
was sympathetic but noted that despite having exerted every
effort to retain enough ewes in the country to provide flock
increases, the number of sheep was nevertheless dwindling. 63
Harry Kelly went so far as to say that within a short time
there would be no ewes at all in San Miguel County. 64

These thoughts were a part of the gloom of the times in
an area which had now started toward the eventual loss of
its major industries, but Bond and Wiest were both satisfied
with the showing there, 65 and Wiest wanted Holbrook at
Wagon Mound which may have been contributory to his
wanting to sell. 86 However, Holbrook continued to run the
store, run sheep, buy and sell wool, and all the myriad activi-
ties devolving upon a Bond manager. Like Frank Bond at Es-

58. Copy Book, July 11, 1904, p. 11, Holbrook Papers, loc. eft.

59. Ibid., August 80, 1904, p. 87.

60. Letter Book No. 6, July 8, 1911.

61. Ibid. The amole plant has detergent properties and its rootstock is normally used
as a substitute for soap. Wiest mentions "rope," however. At the same time he stated his
distrust of dry farmers and said that he would pay them only after the cars were
actually loaded.

62. Letter Book No. 59, August 11, 1915, p. 884.

63. Ibid.

64. Ibid.

65. Letter Book No. 56, January 19, 1915, p. 533.

66. Letter Book No. 6, January 20, 1914.

FRANK BOND 243

panola and like Andy Wiest before him at Cuervo, Holbrook
was active on the District School Board and attended, for
instance, to such miscellaneous matters as trying to get Don
Grabiel [sic] Chavez' son pardoned from the state penitenti-
ary. 67 He acted as agent for Henry Posha of German Valley,
Illinois, who owned one of the grants, 68 and found a buyer
for two ranches that George Bond owned on the east side of
the Beck Grant. 69 A. H. Long continued to own property in
Cuervo, 70 and Joe Holbrook, Jr., doubtless looked after that
property also. His son, J. S. Holbrook, is still in Cuervo and
operates the business today.

67. Copy Book, October 18, 1904, p. 152, Holbrook Papers, loc. cit. ; ibid., July 19,
1911 ; ibid.. August 21, 1912.

68. Ibid., March 5, 1913.

69. Ibid., March 7, 1918.

70. Ibid., November 14, 1912. Long had married the daughter of W. R. Lott who had
property holdings in Cuervo also. Interview with H. R. Roberson.

Book Reviews

The Jews of California from the Discovery of Gold until 1880.
By Rudolf Glanz, New York, 1960, with the help of the
Southern California Jewish Historical Society. Pp. viii,
188.

An introductory chapter, dealing in broad sweeps, whets
the appetite of the reader to the expectation of consuming a
serious, analytical study an analysis that never quite mate-
rializes. What does come forth is a factually packed volume
derived from meticulous combing of primary and other sound
sources. Even so, it is weakened by the repetitiousness of
similar fact, much of which could have been avoided by a
more balanced grouping of imaginative topics. The last eleven
of the book's fifteen chapters, comprising but one-third of
the pages, but embracing important and promising subjects,
suggest the opportunities that were available to the author.

The heavy concentration of Jews in San Francisco with
the flower of their mercantile interests dominating smaller
economic communities, including Los Angeles, is recognized
frequently by the author but is not developed as a thesis. The
permanent residence of these people is a matter of occasional
comment. Yet what would seem to follow, a major contribu-
tion to the cultural life of the communities, is seldom ap-
proached with a positive flavor.

If, in spite of the introductory chapter, the author had
meant to limit his objective to a simple descriptive but factu-
ally accurate story, the book could be read much less criti-
cally. It would have been helpful in any case, however, if a
preface setting forth these limits of treatment had been writ-
ten, and if an index and bibliography had been constructed.

It is evident that Dr. Glanz has uncovered, for this study,
adequate factual material which, if coupled with his known
rich background in Jewish cultural history, should have pro-
duced a more expansive and significant analysis of Jewish
contributions to the early development of California.
University of New Mexico WM. J. PARISH

244

BOOK REVIEWS 245

Indians, Infants and Infantry: Andrew and Elizabeth Burt
on the Frontier. By Merrill J. Mattes. Denver : The Old
West Publishing Company, 1960. Preface, end-plate
maps, illustrations, index. Pp. 304. $5.95.

By and large, the last frontier was a man's frontier. The
fur trapper, the miner and the cowboy found it so, and until
the "sodbuster" brought in his family to till the land women
were mighty scarce articles. The ordinary soldier, in his
grim, louse-infested barracks, was aware of this ugly truth.
He knew that "rank has its privileges," one of which was
that of the officers to bring their wives and children to the
lonely outposts that stood forlornly against the western back-
drop. Occasionally these frontierswomen sought to escape
from the tedium of army post life by keeping journals in
which they noted the things that interested them. Elizabeth
Burt, wife of career officer Andrew Burt, was one of them,
and through her eyes we see another side of army life.

The diaries kept by Elizabeth Burt have been lost, but a
good deal of the information they contained went into a
reminiscence she wrote in 1912. The important thing about
this writing is that it was done with the diaries before her,
setting it apart from many other frontier recollections that
depend upon memory. Her manuscript, "An Army Wife's
Forty Years in the Service," covered most of her fifty-three
year marriage to Burt, but of particular interest to histor-
ians of the plains West is the fact that over half of it dealt
with the crucial years 1866-1876.

Elizabeth Burt's story not only supplements a good deal
of the information already known to historians, but it adds
to that side of western life of which so little has been written :
the woman's view, family life. Merrill Mattes has done a
great deal with his materials at hand, carefully supplement-
ing the document with lengthy explanatory discourses that
fill any gaps and make the whole fabric not only good reading
but entirely useful as a contribution to western history.

Through this intelligent and observant woman's eyes, one
follows the family to Fort Kearny, Nebraska, in the critical
year, 1866, and on to Fort Bridger in southwestern Wyo-

246 NEW MEXICO HISTORICAL REVIEW

ming, followed closely by an assignment to Fort C. F. Smith,
on the southern Montana segment of the Bozeman Trail.
Here the Burts moved into Red Cloud's country at a time
when that famous road was under siege by the Sioux, and
Fort Smith, so little known in history, comes to life at the
hands of an army wife who not only followed her husband to
this distant outpost but took along a small baby. This is the
heart of the book, the zenith of Mrs. Burt's military experi-
ence, and its words are a bonanza to both historian and lay
reader. There is an excellent account of leaving the Fort
when the Bozeman Trail posts were given up by the army in
1868.

From 1874 to 1876 the Burts were at Fort Laramie,
again finding themselves in the center of events that led to
the climax at the Little Big Horn in the latter year. One
does not find here the usual portrayal of these significant
military actions, but instead the richness of experience re-
lated by one who waited nearby, saw the coming and going
of the troops, and watched anxiously for word from the
front. Mrs. Burt might be said to have been sitting in the
bleachers, but it takes nothing away from the excitement of
events transpiring on the field of action. Her story well com-
plements the many published stories of what happened on the
field of battle. No major work about the days of the Indian
fighting army will be written now without reference to this
valuable contribution Merrill Mattes has provided.
University of Colorado ROBERT G. ATHEARN

Victoriano Huerta: A Reappraisal. William L. Sherman and
Richard E. Greenleaf. Mexico, D. F. : Imprenta Aldina,
1960. Distributed by The Mexico City College Press.
Pp. 164.

For two reasons, this reviewer has approached this book
with what may be something less than an objective state of
mind. One reason is that, in his opinion, on a list of Latin
American historical figures for whom biographies are "long
overdue," Victoriano Huerta should be comfortably en-
trenched, preferably buried, near or at the bottom. He might

BOOK REVIEWS 247

be worth a footnote by way of reinstatement of character;
he could conceivably be stretched to article-length treatment
by dint of painstaking research and careful presentation.
In book-length treatment, this reviewer finds his career in-
sufferably dull, his mind a vacuum, his physical courage a
far too common and misdirected quality to be interesting,
and his family life approximating that of a Mexican Babbitt.

Secondly, the reviewer holds an aversion toward pub-
lished works resting heavily upon secondary sources. Such
works oblige one to wade through masses of material already
(and recently) in print in English in order to grasp the "new
contribution" presumably embedded in this reworked ore,
whether in the form of "new-fact" nuggets or in what pur-
ports to be reinterpretation. He regrets to report that after
reading this book both his prejudices have been deepened.

The fault with this work is not in the way in which it is
written. The authors demonstrate considerable skill in syn-
thesizing; their quotations are often well chosen and are
revealing cameos of Mexico during the Revolution. The fault
lies rather in the reasoning of the authors as to why Huerta
should be reappraised, the readers to whom such reappraisal
should be addressed, and the proper limitations of the re-
appraisal given the use of limited sources.

Huerta has been maliciously defamed by propagandists
of the Mexico Revolution, whose outpourings have been un-
critically absorbed (the false Huerta is far more interesting
than the real one) by semipopular writers in the United
States. The authors of this work feel that the scholarly world
should be informed that Huerta was, after all, human. He
was not a drunkard for he held his liquor well ; he did not
take dope or indulge in sexual orgies. This reviewer makes
the assumption that only the casual reader of textbook level
status is in need of this reminder. The book, however, carries
the baggage of footnotes, conventional historical style, and
bibliography the appendages but not the content (due to
lack of depth in research) of genuine scholarship. It there-
by has been misconceived for it is neither popular nor schol-
arly.

As to the limitations of their work, the authors proceed

248 NEW MEXICO HISTORICAL REVIEW

to pass judgment on far more serious matters than Huerta's
character a task for which the amount of research done ill
equips them to do. The question of the exact relationship of
a man to an event as profound and complex as the Mexican
Revolution is a matter requiring the most detailed study.
It is, in short, assessing the role of the political leader within
the context of multiple impersonal forces. Given the several
forces of discontent unleashed by 1910, no leader could com-
mand a peaceful, progressive Mexico until other impersonal
forces came to his aid. The authors seem to think differently.
Despite references to Charles Cumberland's work (Mexican
Revolution: Genesis Under Madero, Austin, 1952,), they
adopt a pre-Cumberland view of Madero, selecting for cita-
tion quotations concerning Madero's personal shortcomings,
and justifying the coup of 1913 against him on the grounds
that the administration was, after all, weak, and that the
most powerful elements of society were agitating for a
change. They conclude that it is "more or less certain that his
administration would not have remained in power for a full
term, regardless of Victoriano Huerta" (p. 73). In other
words, Madero simply could not maintain peace and order
and at the same time satisfy discontented elements. Concern-
ing the conservative coup of 1913 (where the authors omit
mentioning that Huerta made no convincing efforts to assault
the Ciudadela, and used reinforcements on useless military
objectives), the picture presented by the authors is one of a
much-needed restorer of peace and order who has become,
by some miraculous metamorphosis, a social reformer de-
sirous of advancing the land reform program if Mexican dis-
contents and Woodrow Wilson would only let him alone.

This thesis is supported by extremely thin evidence. As to
Huerta's success in restoring law and order, the authors do
observe that revolts by Carranza and Zapata were never
suppressed. They use, however, a comment by the American
diplomat's wife, Mrs. O'Shaughnessy (p. 110), to support
the contention that elsewhere brigandage and small-scale
revolts had been put down. It seems unlikely that Mrs.
O'Shaughnessy, or any other person residing in Mexico City,
could know this by other than hearsay. The fact that Huerta,

BOOK REVIEWS 249

previously innocent of ideas, stated that he would create a
Ministry of Agriculture devoted in part to land distribution
(p. 109) does not make him a social reformer. The authors
fail to observe that Huerta's conservative support rested
exactly on the supposition that he would not carry out a pro-
gram of this kind. It is, furthermore, illogical to contend that
Huerta would have been able to restore peace and would have
advanced the Revolution if revolts had stopped and Wilson's
intervention had been withdrawn, and, at the same time, to
contend that the reason Madero could not do these things
was because he was weak and could not maintain control,
thus justifying a coup against him. Actually both Madero
and Huerta were trying unsuccessfully to ride the wild horse
of Revolution. Both failed. If Madero had the advantage of
non-intervention by the United States, Huerta had the ad-
vantage of conservative support; but neither of these ad-
vantages could offset the rising tide of the Revolution. The
personalities of the respective leaders had very little to do
with the course of events.

Despite a tendency toward many short sentences in suc-
cession which create, at times, a monotonous effect, this book
is written in crisp prose embellished by a number of well-
turned phrases. There are, however, a few non sequiturs and
occasional vaguenesses. In a summation of pre-revolutionary
discontent including strikes, examples of subversive litera-
ture, and Madero's political activities, the authors conclude:
"The government suddenly realized that the mild little agi-
tator, Madero, had created a monster which eyed hungrily
the National Palace in Mexico City" (p. 20). The reader has
hardly been prepared for this sweeping evaluation of Ma-
dero's influence. The meaning of the statement that "Huerta's
seizure of power was little more than a fait accompli . . .
(the remainder of the sentence deals with another thought)
leaves this reviewer completely mystified.

The book is cleanly edited with scrupulous accuracy in
the accentuation of Spanish words; apotheoistic (p. 45),
however, does not appear in the dictionary. There are one or
two misplaced relative pronouns and a dependent clause (p.
12) is set aside by a semicolon as though it were independent.

250 NEW MEXICO HISTORICAL REVIEW

Sources are occasionally cited uncritically. Aside from
the question of historical importance, Huerta did not die
poor simply because Samuel F. Bemis "states flatly" (p. 115)
that it is so. He probably did die poor, but Professor Bemis
stands at a respectable distance from intimate knowledge of
this matter. There remains the fact that the great bulk of
this book simply recounts what has already appeared in
English. This reviewer is not enlightened to reread Howard
Cline's (The United States and Mexico, Cambridge, 1953)
educated sneers at Wilsonian idealism in paraphrased form
in the last chapter. There are citations of several Masters'
theses written at Mexico City College. Their content, how-
ever, has apparently not been utilized ; the footnotes merely
announce their existence.

Except for the reappraisal of Huerta's character, which
might have been done in one-tenth the space, this work merely
rearranges the topsoil of the Mexican Revolution in an un-
convincing pattern. The authors have embarked upon a
course without the necessary ballast.
University of New Mexico TROY S. FLOYD

The Gila Trail: The Texas Argonauts and the California
Gold Rush. By Benjamin Butler Harris. Edited and an-
notated by Richard H. Dillon. (American Exploration and
Travel Series, Volume 31.) Norman: University of Okla-
homa Press, 1960. Pp. ix, 175. Map, illustrations, notes,
appendix, bibliographical note and index. $4.00.

The editor contends that Benjamin Butler Harris's remi-
niscence of his experience on the Gila Trail and in the Cali-
fornia gold fields is worthy of publication on the basis of
interest, color, readability, and new information added to the
meager knowledge available concerning the experiences of
gold seekers over the Gila route. The editor is correct in his
contention. Harris, a practicing attorney, was well educated,
an intelligent observer, a humorist worthy of note and a
writer of ability. His account is well worth the attention of
readers who desire to be entertained as well as those who
seek historical information.

BOOK REVIEWS 251

Harris left Panola County, Texas, on March 25, 1849, to
join the party of Isaac H. Duval who was in charge of one of
the earliest groups from Texas to travel to the California
gold fields. The party journeyed to El Paso and then looped
southward across northern Chihuahua before passing
through Tucson, Yuma and Tejon to complete their journey
at Sonora on September 29, 1849.

The carefully prepared editorial notes generally comple-
ment the narrative; however, two important points should
be clarified. Harris tells (114-119) an interesting and an
amusing account of acquiring a turpentine topknot while
sleeping under a resinous pine tree. The pound ball of tur-
pentine clung annoyingly to his hair for days because he
could not find scissors to cut it away. "Then bowie and pocket
knives were tried but their rough edges proved too tedious
and painful (114)." He even moved to another camp before
he found a pair of scissors.

The editor should have recognized this as a good story
and nothing more. On the frontier, a man's life could depend
on a sharp knife and in an environment where it was not un-
known for an individual to amputate one of his own limbs,
it is hard to conceive of Harris being squeamish about having
someone cut a ball of pine tar out of his hair with a knife.

Harris says (103), "A peculiarity of the atmosphere at
this season was its magnifying properties under certain con-
ditions and situations." The editor states (note 113), "Per-
haps this will explain (even excuse) the tendency of Cali-
fornians ... to exaggerate." The editor is naive in not rec-
ognizing exaggeration to be a more fundamental character-
istic than something induced by a peculiarity of the atmos-
phere and is lax in not pointing out specific instances of ex-
exaggeration.

That Chief Gomez (110) had two thousand warriors is
certainly an overstatement. The footnote (4) implies that
this number may have been two hundred, but it is not clear.
A war party of four hundred Apaches (67, 69) was possible.
The editor should have questioned (79, note 72) that "More
than once [Tucson] has been invested by from one to two
thousand Indians . ."

252 NEW MEXICO HISTORICAL REVIEW

The editors Foreword and Dramatis Personse might have
been more carefully presented. The statement that the "Soon-
ers" of the California Gold Rush (ix) were Texans should
have been more substantially supported. This contention is
contradicted by the statement (3) that "Their companions
on the trail were simple, restless and rootless men from all
corners and strata of North America." The reader is left to
wonder if they became Texans by simply passing through
Texas. The statement that Harris's companions were simple,
restless or rootless is contradicted by the editor's admission
(14) that little is known about the rest of the Duval party.

"At this, I laid from my belt by two duelling pistols . . ."
(107) should read my instead of by. Damned (29, note 4)
should be dammed since it refers to impounding a body of
water rather than dooming to everlasting punishment.
Albuquerque, N. M. VICTOR WESTPHALL

End of Track. By James H. Kyner as told to Hawthorne
Daniel. Lincoln : University of Nebraska Press, 1960. Pp.
280. Notes. $1.60.

The University of Nebraska Press, launching a new series
of paper bound volumes called Bison Books, has wisely
chosen to reprint this autobiography, originally issued in
1937 by the Caxton Printers. The present edition, well made,
sets an excellent physical standard for the volumes to come.
The book itself is absorbing reading. It begins with Kyner's
youth as the son of a village innkeeper in Ohio, depicting an
attractive kind of rural life now long vanished from America.
His idyllic situation was shattered by the Civil War, in which
he served as a young volunteer. His account of how he fought
and was wounded in the Battle of Shiloh vividly shows just
what must have happened to many a simple rural lad in the
early clashes of the conflict. After the war Kyner farmed, was
in the insurance business and eventually won a seat in the
Nebraska legislature, where for four years he so successfully
blocked anti-railroad legislation that the Union Pacific
abruptly, unexpectedly rewarded him with a contract to
build a twenty-five mile branch line within the state. He had

BOOK REVIEWS 253

no experience or capital, but managed to execute the task
successfully and make a profit of $10,000. He went on to build
or refurbish many miles of track in Idaho, Colorado, Wyo-
ming, Iowa and Ohio. Bankrupted in the panic of 1893, he
started again with nothing and made enough to retire from
railroading in 1901 with a comfortable fortune.

Kyner's account of his experiences as a railroad contrac-
tor is unique; there is no comparable document. He relates
the exciting things, the tribulations and the general tech-
niques in pages interesting for the general reader but frus-
trating to the specialist eager for the details which only such
an expert as he could have supplied. In sweeping strokes he
depicts the era when railroads pioneered through the unset-
tled west, when men of pragmatic enterprise achieved great
works and secured large fortunes. Most of the areas where
Kyner built were sparsely populated, lawless and in many
ways uncivilized. As serious history, this autobiography of a
railroad frontiersman is much better in setting the general
scene than giving the details; as interesting reading, it is
superior.
University of Idaho WILLIAM S. GREEVER

The Maxwell Land Grant. By Jim Berry Pearson. Norman :
University of Oklahoma Press, 1961. Pp. xiv, 305. $5.00.

The many histories of the famous Maxwell Land Grant
have usually stressed the way in which Carlos Beaubien and
Guadalupe Miranda, its original recipients, managed to ac-
quire such a huge two million acre tract from Governor
Armijo in 1843. Then they treat the lordly manner in which
Lucien B. Maxwell, who became the Grant's owner for a
time, lived on his vast estate and dispensed lavish frontier
hospitality to all comers. After Maxwell agreed to sell the
property in 1869 to a syndicate of Colorado and British pro-
moters backed by Dutch capital, the Grant's history is usually
depicted as a saga of sophisticated financial chicanery prac-
ticed by the Maxwell Land Grant and Railroad Company as
they promoted fraudulent stock sales abroad and exploited
the company property at home. This robber-baron, big-

254 NEW MEXICO HISTORICAL REVIEW

business aspect of the Grant's history has been reinforced
by many colorful accounts of the violent and often tragic
war between settlers who felt the Grant was public domain
and the Company who insisted sometimes at gunpoint
that it was not.

All these standard items and many more appear in Dr.
Jim Berry Pearson's fact-studded and often entertaining
book. But this study is far more than a rehash of a familiar
story. Intrigued by placer mining scars on the side of Baldy
Mountain and curious about the few remaining buildings
of the once prosperous mining community of Elizabethtown,
the author at first sought to uncover the mining history of
Colfax County. But this search led him into a study of the
Maxwell Company itself since it owned the region and many
of its enterprises centered on mining. What has emerged is
an unusually detailed history of the Company from its be-
ginnings down to the present decade, in essense a study of
large-scale corporate endeavor on the frontier. Dr. Pearson's
fresh version is all the more valuable since he had access to
the Company records which have been lying undisturbed in
the vault of the First National Bank of Raton for some years.
Consisting of account books, minutes of meetings, annual
reports, scrapbooks and letters, these sources supplemented
by local newspapers enabled Dr. Pearson to make a thor-
ough economic case study of the Company somewhat on the
order of Herbert O. Brayer's monumental history of William
Blackmore's western enterprises. The Maxwell Land Grant
also represents another sure step in the direction of recover-
ing New Mexico's past economic history, a task in which
Dean William J. Parish, Max Moorhead, and Brayer have
already pioneered.

Dr. Pearson's account is far from a straight business
history, however, for he provides a readable but intelligent
summary of Lucien Maxwell's career, a history of the brief-
lived but roaring community of Elizabethtown, and a de-
tailed rendition of the deadly activities of gunmen like "Wall"
Henderson and Clay Allison, as well as of crusaders like the
rambunctious Reverend 0. P. McMains. Nevertheless his
chief contributions lie in a coverage of mining and Company

BOOK REVIEWS 255

history. He establishes the importance of mining in fostering
the Grant's development even though the gold extracted sel-
dom paid large sums. Quite the reverse, the cost of mining
it often bankrupted its investors. At the same time he uses
facts and figures to cut the legendary stories about the Aztec
and Montezuma mines down to size. In discussing the Com-
pany's other wide-ranging enterprises on the Grant a coal
and coke company, irrigation projects, a cement factory,
ranching and railroad building he finds that these efforts
also met with relatively limited success.

Such failures are explained in large part by the unending
struggle lasting to 1887, to secure valid title to the Grant,
to eject squatters, and to find capital. But the real cause of
failure lay in the Company itself which was torn by warring
factions among the directors, feuds between the British pro-
moters and the Dutch mortgage holders, and a lack of under-
standing between the local managers of the property and its
absentee owners. And lastly, the presence of speculators who
periodically raided the Company's assets resulted in a crush-
ing bonded indebtedness and receivership. The author finds
this struggle continuing right into the twentieth century until
the Amsterdam bondholders finally assumed full control of
the property.

By carefully avoiding moral judgments and by the use of
a historical perspective which 0. P. McMains and his anti-
Grant settlers could never have acquired, Dr. Pearson is able
to conclude his study on a somewhat positive note :

Despite . . . constant dissension the land grant company
initiated projects for developing the area's resources. Its offi-
cials sought to bring in railroads, mined and marketed coal,
operated a cement factory, constructed two expensive irriga-
tion projects, experimented with various crops, mined gold and
silver, ran herds of cattle, leased rich stands of timber, and
sold off the property in both large and small tracts.

The Maxwell Land Grant is so generally thorough and
objective in its coverage that only one major omission de-
serves comment. Every observer in nineteenth century New
Mexico noted that little could be done in the territory with-

256 NEW MEXICO HISTORICAL REVIEW

out the sanction or collaboration of the clique of lawyers and
businessmen called the Santa Fe Ring. Yet the role of the
Ring in Colfax County politics and in the Company's history
is never made clear in this book. If the relations of Probate
Judge Dr. R. H. Longwill, Attorney M. W. Mills, and Frank
Springer with the Ring could be spelled out, the real reason
for attaching Colfax County to Taos during Governor Ax-
tell's administration might be less obscure than it appears
here. It rather looks as if the Company managers were fight-
ing Tom Catron and the Ring just then and the attachment
was a legal method to embarrass or even seize the Company.
The role of Judge L. B. Prince and several others in rendering
certain favorable decisions for the Company is not treated ;
and finally, the reason for choosing W. T. Thornton, law
partner to Catron, as receiver for the Company in 1880
might have been explored. Such inclusions would have given
better focus to the Grant's role in New Mexican political
history.

On the level of minor criticism this reviewer unhappily
found several instances of poor proof reading. Dr. R. H.
Longwill, or so spelled in Twitchell, becomes Longwell in this
volume. Melvin W. Mills also appears as Marvin W. Mills,
while Wilson Waddingham is on one occasion "Waddington"
and George M. Pullman is "George H." These errors and the
fact that the University of Oklahoma Press omitted pages
99 to 115 in this reviewer's copy mar a clear, readable, thor-
oughly researched and documented history of the Maxwell
Land Grant, its owners, enterprises, and opponents. The
book is well illustrated with many photographs of Grant
figures and scenes.

Yale University HOWARD R. LAMAR

^Mexico

3

Historical l^eview

Palace of the Governors, Santa Fe _ .. c

October, 1961

Editors
FRANK D. REEVE PAUL A. F. WALTER

Associates

PERCY M. BALDWIN GEORGE P. HAMMOND

FRANCE V. SCHOLES ELEANOR B. ADAMS

BRUCE T. ELLIS

VOL. XXXVI OCTOBER, 1961 No. 4

CONTENTS

Page

Paul "Flying Eagle" Goodbear

Luella Thornburgh 257

The Chouteau-Demun Expedition To New Mexico, 1815-17

George S. Ulibarri 263

Frank Bond : Gentleman Sheepherder of Northern New Mexico,
1883-1915 (continued)
Frank H. Grubbs 274

Notes and Documents 346

Book Reviews 349

THE NEW MEXICO HISTORICAL REVIEW is published jointly by the
Historical Society of New Mexico and The University of New Mexico.
Subscription to the REVIEW is by membership in the Society open to all.
Dues, including subscription, $5.00 annually, in advance. Single num-
bers, except a few which have become scarce, are $1.00 each. For further
information regarding back files and other publications available, see
back cover.

Membership dues and other business communications should be ad-
dressed to the Historical Society of New Mexico, Box 1727, Santa Fe,
N. M. Manuscripts and editorial correspondence should be addressed
to Prof. Frank D. Reeve, The University of New Mexico, Albuquerque,
N. M.

Entered as second-class matter at Santa Fe, New Mexico
PRINTED AT THE UNIVERSITY OF NEW MEXICO, ALBUQUERQUE

PAUL "FLYING EAGLE" GOODBEAR

NEW MEXICO HISTORICAL
REVIEW

VOL. XXXVI OCTOBER, 1961 No. 4

PAUL "FLYING EAGLE" GOODBEAR

?/LUELLATHORNBURGH *

ON June 26, 1954, in a hospital in Chicago, a full-blood
Cheyenne Indian artist and writer passed away, leaving
his widow and two children, three and five years old alone
to review his successes. His family was in Thoreau, New Mex-
ico, at the time, waiting for the arrival of husband and father.
His death cut off the fine works of Paul "Flying Eagle" Good-
bear, a descendant of Warring Cheyennes during the 1850's
through the year 1878. Paul Goodbear was the grandson of
Chief Turkey Legs, the great great grandson of Chief Whirl-
wind and the great grandson of Chief Starr of Oklahoma.

His contribution to New Mexico history came with the
restoration of prehistoric murals at Coronado Monument
Museum near Bernalillo, and the techniques he used were
akin to those of the Greeks and Italian masters. In this work,
he was necessarily forced to paint on fresh plaster. His pa-
tience and understanding of his duty as a contractor for the
job as well as his fidelity to his own style of painting is
amazing, and the finished product is preserved for future
generations.

Paul Goodbear was born near Fay, Oklahoma, where
Cheyennes lived on disconnected farms instead of banded to-
gether. He was a gentle young man, always ready to interpret
the old stories of the tribe ; however, he did know that Turkey
Legs was in the battle of the Big Horn the one at which Cus-
ter and his men fell and died. An unidentified newspaper
write-up of Paul "Flying Eagle" Goodbear quotes much from

* P.O. Box 36, Sandoval, N. M.

257

258 NEW MEXICO HISTORICAL REVIEW

the World Book about the ancestors of Paul. The Cheyennes
"became the most skillful and daring riders of the Plains.
.... They have always been a strong, brave people who held
women in high regard."

In this atmosphere of tribal stories, Paul learned the
dances, then became interested in expressing the movement
and color of the living figures of the ceremonial participants.
Furthermore, he became an educator of Indians of all tribes
and injected his personality into manuscripts written about
them.

Paul's mother was a bead worker and skilled in her art,
and here again is background for his gentility and under-
standing of all peoples. He married a Choctaw, described as
"small and vivacious," who was also interested in the teach-
ings of the antecedents on both sides. On occasion, Mrs. Good-
bear reminded her husband in a fond manner that while his
people were roaming the plains, her people were being called
one of the "Five Civilized Tribes ..." and had begun to
adopt log houses for abodes. She is a graduate of Southeast
State College at Durant, Oklahoma, and her influence on her
husband's short-lived future was tremendous.

World War II took Paul away from his dancing, his paint-
ings, his writing and in general threw him again into the
life of a "Warring Cheyenne." He was wounded twice in the
Normandy Landing and in the Battle of the Bulge. Officially,
his name of "Flying Eagle" an Indian tag was given to
him after his return from his services with the United States.
Not having enough to give to his country, he went to Japan as
a staff artist with three American daily newspapers and a
comic strip was born, entitled "Chief Ugh." Deep rooted hu-
mor poured from his pen. This proves the kinship of the
pioneer and the living Indian tribe which, if founded in time,
could have averted wars, costly to man and beast alike.

A painting of Cheyenne Buffalo Dancer, full of action and
graceful lines was sold at the Capper Crippled Childrens art

auction in in the year . Paul, at this

time, had already exhibited at the Metropolitan in New York,
at the Syracuse Museum of Fine Arts at Philbrook Museum
and in the Santa Fe Art Gallery. Another painting, Cheyenne

DRAWING BY PAUL GOODBEAR

PAUL "FLYING EAGLE" GOODBEAR 259

War Dance, was also donated by Paul "Flying Eagle" Good-
bear for private sale, with the proceeds designated for the
crippled children's fund.

While contributing to art collections in New Mexico
(paintings by Goodbear can be seen at the Hilton Hotel in Al-
buquerque) , he had his heart in the education of the Indian
tribes, and made some good comparisons on the methods of
teaching in public schools of tribal Indians and teachings in
white schools. His sense of competition was quite cast aside in
favor of his sense of consideration for fellow man and obedi-
ence to human rights. This is why he championed, always,
the Indian artist's right to retain his own expression and
reflect his heritage.

Paul Goodbear's children live with their mother who still
teaches in Indian Schools Indian Mission Schools and
speaks of Paul with great respect and admiration for his
works, the ones his untimely death left undone. She is re-
married, and her two children are living the happy, educa-
tional life they embarked upon. The history of Paul Good-
bear's contribution to New Mexico history should be recorded,
for it was in the state of New Mexico where he left most of
his estate, that of his paintings and the new generation he
launched.

CHEYENNE SUN DANCE

By PAUL FLYING EAGLE GOODBEAR

It was early morning and the camp was already wide
awake. This was the fourth day of preparation and the sun
dance was about to begin. The Cheyennes came out of their
teepees to watch for the parade of the clans. It was the clans
duty to secure the poles for the sun lodge and they would soon
be coming. Then came a shout from the far side of the camp
Some one had spied them approaching on horseback.

The dog soldier clan came to a halt. It was at the edge of
the huge camp. They regrouped into a formation of four
abreast, much like soldiers on parade. Indeed, some of them
were old warriors. They had paraded like this many times

260 NEW MEXICO HISTORICAL REVIEW

before. In olden days they had gone on the war path. They
started slowly around the outer side of the camp. First came
the old war chiefs all decked out in war bonnets. They wore
breach cloths of bright colors, white beaded moccasins, and
some had made willow wreath necklaces for their ponies.
Scalps hung from lances that the proud chiefs had taken in
battle. They were indeed a proud lot. Behind them rode the
war dancers. They were mostly younger men. Dyed porcu-
pine headdresses shimmered in the sun like Roman plumes.
All wore exquisite beaded vests, gauntlets, and bells around
their ankles jingled as they rode along. Next came the medi-
cine men and buffalo dancers. Huge buffalo headdresses
trimmed with eagle feathers made them look top heavy, which
only added to their already majestic bearing.

As the clan advanced they began to sing an old war song.
Men who watched shouted war whoops and women sang or
cried. Memories were very real and near to some of them. It
was indeed an inspiring sight, though a little sad I thought.
The glory was a thing of the past and only memories re-
mained. But what glorious memories these were I was to see
for the next three days of the sun dance.

That evening the Elk Soldiers, the Black Arrows and the
Chief Clan performed the opening dance in the sun lodge. It
was soon filled with men, women, and horses. The loud sing-
ing, war whoops, and discharging of old Winchesters filled
the air with dramatic noises. After a special dance the horses
were given away to friends. Men lead the horses away and
women struggled along behind them loaded down with gifts.

Now it was time for the sun dance to begin. The most
sacred of all the Cheyenne ceremonials, the most elaborate,
and the most cruel. Cruel from the stand point of the hunger
and thirst involved. The dancers must dance for three days
and nights without food or drink. At night they get very little
sleep.

The drums began to sound a vibrating rhythm of accent
and unaccented time. A high-pitched falsetto voice started
each long solo. Then the other singers would join in unison.
Singers were divided into groups so that they could sing in
relay fashion, day and night, without a break.

PAUL "FLYING EAGLE" GOODBEAR 261

The sundancers stood up. Each was directed by a medi-
cine man. Another man behind him guided his arms. He
swung them toward the eagles nest on the center pole at the
right instant. The eagle bone whistles between their lips were
blown in unison and to the beat of the drum. This whistle, as
the dancers found out later, would dry their throats to in-
crease their thirst. Each man was painted with symbolic de-
signs down to the waist. He wore a blanket wrapped around
his waist like a skirt. A willow wreath was on his head. Green
willow streamers dangled from his wrists. In one hand he
held an eagle feather fan and four sacred arrows in the other.

They danced in an up and down motion not moving from
the spot. At first I thought this was monotonous. But as the
days went on it grew on me and I found myself singing along
with the rest. Several times I shouted encouragement to a
faltering dancer. Once in a while an exhausted dancer would
fall to the ground.

The medicine men watched over these dancers carefully.
They made them comfortable on their buffalo robes and mas-
saged their bodies. Some lay in semi-consciousness most of
the third day while others danced on. Some leaned on willow
staffs to support their lean, starved bodies. They swayed
backward and forward in a feeble attempt to dance. Others
sat and stared at the huge piles of food set before them which
they were forbidden to eat. Any one else might eat, but not
the fasting sun dancers.

This last day, late in the afternoon, the sun stood still.
That is, it seemed so to the dancers. They would, now and
then, look to see how far the sun had progressed since last
they looked. It crept so slowly across the sky and became so
hot. The thirst, the hunger, and delirious delusions increased
with the heat. Surely this day would never end, and all of
them would slowly die. But they also knew that the sun must
set as it always had and with it would come the end of the
dance. Then they could eat and drink again, their sacrifice
having been made. But right now the time stood still.

As if this were not torture enough, the dancers were lined
up. They were to run out of the lodge, to an arrow stuck in
the ground, around the arrow and back to the lodge again.

262 NEW MEXICO HISTORICAL REVIEW

Once at each cardinal point this must be done. As weakened
as they were, they formed a line. This was their final test of
endurance and they could not falter now. The signal was
given and the dancers rushed forward, more stumbling than
running. Some of them fell, but were helped to their feet and
allowed to continue. Finally all finished the run and another
sun dance was over. Over except for the memories that would
remain for years to come. Something to tell their grand-
children. Their faith and trust in their maker had been
proven. Their belief had been strong enough to carry them
through to the final completion of the sun dance.

"Well, how was it?" I asked a dancer walking along to his
teepee.

"It was pretty tough. I didn't think I'd last till it rained
last night and cooled everything off. Then I knew that God
had seen us and taken pity on us. We all made it. Now it is
over and it is good."

This was my father talking. He had just taken part in the
sun dance the Cheyenne tribe had in 1950.

PIKE'S MAP

This map is a correct copy of Capt. Pike's map. All the alterations
& additions which I have thought necessary and the Spanish names of
rivers &c are made with red ink. Perhaps it will not be improper to
observe that Rio del Norte is not correctly laid down on this map, as
said river, from a little above Taos, runs almost a due west course, fol-
lowing the foot of the mountains (which at Taos form a right angle)
till a little below the village of La Canada, from whence it takes its
course again to the South.

The place marked thus [] on the river Cuerno Verde (or Green
Home) is where we have been taken by the Spaniards.

Rio Sn. Carlos & its branch, Cuerno Verde, altogether left out on
Pike's map. Serro Huerfano, or Orphan Mound is an isolated rocky
mound about 150 feet high from which the river has derived its name.
The pass of La Sangre de Christo is the pass most generally used by the
Spaniards on their trading expeditions on the Arkansas. No Island in
the Rio del Norte, as put down in Pike's map, he having mistaken the
outlet of large swamps into the river for a channel of said river round
the supposed Island. (Signed) Julius De Mun.

Map of Northern New Mexico

This is a copy of the map submitted to the Claims Com-
mission by Julius Demun as proof that his party was "well
within the recognized boundaries of the United States"
when arrested by the Spaniards. On the lower right hand
corner of the map are listed the rivers whose names he cor-
rected.

The right hand margin on the original map is frayed
and several words and parts of words are now missing. A
complete copy of Demun's "Notes" including the missing
words is eiven in Notes and Documents.

THE CHOUTEAU-DEMUN EXPEDITION
TO NEW MEXICO, 1815-17

By GEORGE S. ULIBARRI*

IN 1815 two enterprising Frenchmen from St. Louis, Mis-
souri, fitted out an expedition to trade with the Indians
along the headwaters of the Arkansas River within the
boundaries of present day Colorado. The trading party was
arrested in 1817 by Spanish colonial authorities of New Mex-
ico and taken to Santa Fe where they were tried, imprisoned,
and their property confiscated. After their release, the trad-
ers returned to St. Louis and began a legal battle which lasted
over 30 years and involved presenting their claim for illegal
property seizure to three different claims commissions before
a final decision was rendered.

The leaders of the expedition were Auguste P. Chouteau
and Julius Demun, former French citizens who had but re-
cently joined the great American melting pot. Both were
members of well-known families in the Missouri Territory.
Auguste P. Chouteau was born in St. Louis and had acquired
American citizenship under Article III of the treaty for the
purchase of Louisiana. He was a nephew of Auguste Chou-
teau, one of the founders of St. Louis. Members of the Chou-
teau family were leaders of the fur trade in the early part of
the 19th century, their operations extending from the Mis-
souri Territory to the headwaters of the Platte, the Arkan-
sas, and the Rio Grande. 1 Julius Demun, who was born on the
island of Santo Domingo, emigrated to the United States at
the time of the "great massacre." He lived in Delaware and
Pennsylvania before moving to Ste. Genevieve, Missouri, and
from there went to St. Louis in 1810. 2 His brother, Count

* 3960 Penna. Ave., SE., Washington 20, B.C.

1. Ralph Emerson Twitchell, The Leading Facts of New Mexican History, Vol.
II, p. 99.

2. Document No. 7, Claim No. 37, U.S. Board of Commissioners, 1849-51, Records of
Boundary and Claims Commissions and Arbitrations, National Archives, Record Group
76. Hereafter records in the National Archives are indicated by the symbol NA, fol-
lowed by the record group (RG) number.

263

264 NEW MEXICO HISTORICAL REVIEW

Louis Demun, was a well-known figure in Washington where
he served as Secretary of the French Legation. 3

In 1815 Auguste P. Chouteau and Julius Demun organ-
ized a large trading party with extensive stores of merchan-
dise, provisions, munitions, and all other suitable equipment
for a trading expedition among the Indians. They obtained a
license from Governor William Clark of the Missouri Terri-
tory before leaving St. Louis on September 10, 1815. The trip
to the headwaters of the Arkansas River was made in the
company of a trader named Phillibert who had spent the
previous year in the Rocky Mountain country and had re-
turned to Missouri to buy supplies with which to trade with
the Indians for horses so he could bring in his supply of furs.
Phillibert, who sold his entire outfit to Chouteau and Demun,
told them that his companions would be waiting at the Huer-
fano Creek, but when they arrived at their destination on
December 8, 1815, the men were gone. Friendly Indians in-
formed Demun that Phillibert's companions had waited until
their supplies were almost gone before deciding to go to New
Mexico.

Leaving Chouteau behind, Demun went to New Mexico
and found them at Taos, where the men had been well treated.
From Taos, Demun decided to go to Santa Fe where he had
an interview with Governor Alberto Maynez. Induced by the
apparent advantage of extending their operations into Span-
ish territory, Demun tried but did not secure permission to
trap beaver in the streams of northern New Mexico. The
Governor, however, promised to recommend to the proper
authorities in Chihuahua that such permission be given. At
the same time he cautioned Demun to restrict his party's ac-
tivities to the areas north of the Red River. 4 Demun after his
interview with Governor Maynez, returned to Chouteau's
camp on the Huerfano Creek, and shortly afterwards, ac-
companied by Phillibert and another trapper, returned to St.
Louis. 5

3. Thomas H. Benton to Secretary of State Henry Clay, May 4, 1825, Miscellaneous
Letters, General Records of the Department of State, NA, RG 69.

4. Document No. 7, Claim No. 37, U.S. Board of Commissioners, 1849-61, NA, RG
76.

6. During: his visit to Santa Fe, New Mexico, Demun learned that James Baird,
Robert McKnight, Samuel Chambers, and other members of a previous trading party

THE CHOUTEAU-DEMUN EXPEDITION 265

Demun with several new members added to his party, left
St. Louis on July 15, 1816, and met Chouteau, who had
brought a shipment of furs, at the mouth of the Kansas river.
From there, the two leaders with a party of about 45 trappers
and hunters returned to the headwaters of the Arkansas
River. Part of the group went to the Sangre de Cristo Moun-
tains while Demun started for Santa Fe. Before arriving at
the New Mexican capital, he learned that the new governor,
Pedro Maria de Allande, was extremely suspicious of the
activities of the fur traders. In fact, Governor Allande or-
dered Chouteau to get out of Spanish territory, an order with
which they complied by proceeding to the headwaters of the
Arkansas where they trapped and hunted during the fall and
winter. 6 During this time they were in frequent communica-
tion with New Mexican authorities. Every precaution was
taken to keep the party's operations within the recognized
boundaries of the United States, although there were rumors
to the contrary. The rumors were investigated but the result
proved them to be wholly without foundation. 7

Demun was planning to take another shipment of furs to
St. Louis when his plans were interrupted by the arrival of a
Spanish military force under Sergeant Mariano Bernal. Gov-
ernor Allande had given Sergeant Bernal orders to arrest
and conduct the entire party to Santa Fe. All members of
the party who were present were arrested on May 24, and on
June 1, 1817, were delivered as prisoners to the Governor in
Santa Fe, where they were tried by a tribunal made up of
the Governor and six other men. Governor Allande felt that
the traders had not obeyed his orders to get out of Spanish
territory. Demun and his party insisted that they were with-
in the recognized boundaries of the United States, engaged in
peaceful activities under a license obtained from Governor
Clark of Missouri. The Spanish governor was not convinced
by their argument, and the two leaders together with 24 of
their companions were confined 48 days in the old jail which

were being forcibly detained in New Mexico by Spanish authorities. News of their de-
tention, which Demun brought to St. Louis, gladdened the hearts of friends and rela-
tives who had feared that something worse than imprisonment had befallen the un-
fortunate traders.

6. Twitchell, op. cit. p. 100.

7. Document 7, Claim No. 37, U.S. Board of Commissioners, 1849-51, NA, RG 76.

266 NEW MEXICO HISTORICAL REVIEW

stood in the plaza in front of the old palace. During this time
they were dieted in a very coarse and meager manner, their
fare consisting mostly of boiled corn and beans without salt. 8
At the end of their period of confinement they were ordered
to leave the dominions of Spain and the only property they
were allowed to keep was their horses and weapons. The
value of the seized property was estimated at $30,380.74. The
traders returned to St. Louis arriving there in September
1817.

Back in St. Louis, Demun lost no time in writing to Gov-
ernor William Clark of the Missouri Territory to give him a
"true and faithful account" of the injury done to him and
Chouteau. Demun's letter dated November 25, 1817, was ac-
companied by other documents submitted as evidence in sup-
port of his statements. He even included a corrected copy of
Pike's map showing the exact spot, south of the Arkansas
River, where his party was taken prisoners. 9 Governor Clark
transmitted Demun's letter and accompanying documents to
Secretary of State, John Quincy Adams. It was not too long
before Demun and Chouteau had the satisfaction of knowing
that their demand for adequate reparation for losses sus-
tained during their expedition to New Mexico had been made
to the Spanish minister by the government of the United
States.

Little else was accomplished until February 22, 1819,
when a treaty was concluded between the United States and
Spain. This treaty, which among other things ceded Florida
to the United States, contained certain provisions in Articles
III, IX, and XI, which vitally affected the outcome of the
Chouteau-Demun claim. Article III defined the western and
northern boundaries of the Louisiana Territory, and recog-
nized the Arkansas River from the point it is intersected by
the 100th meridian west longitude to its source as the bound-
ary line between the United States and Spanish possessions

8. Ibid. Document No. 29. Much of this material has been printed under the title of
"Message and Correspondence relating to the Imprisonment of citizens of the United
States" in American State Papers, Foreign Relations, IV, pp. 209-213, edited by Walter
Lowrie and Walter S. Franklin. It is also printed in Old Santa Fe, I, pp. 370-374.

9. A copy of the map in question appears at the end of the article.

THE CHOUTEAU-DEMUN EXPEDITION 267

along- this sector. This may have weakened the Chouteau-
Demun claim since agreement on this boundary meant that
the Demun party, which was arrested south of the Arkansas,
had been operating in territory which the United States now
recognized as belonging to Spain. In Article IX the United
States agreed to assume responsibility for claims of Ameri-
can citizens against Spain arising from unlawful seizure of
property at sea, in ports and territories of Spain, or in the
Spanish colonies. Article XI provided for the establishment
of a Board of Commissioners to settle the claims of American
citizens against Spain for which the United States govern-
ment had agreed to be responsible in Article IX. In order to
carry out the provisions of the treaty under Articles IX and
XI, the American Congress on March 3, 1821, approved an
act (3 Statutes 639) authorizing the establishment of a Board
of Commissioners consisting of 3 members appointed by the
President to decide on the validity and justice of such claims
as were presented to it.

Demun and Chouteau presented their claim to this Board
where it was filed as Claim No. 587. The claimants were listed
as Auguste P. Chouteau, Julius Demun (spelled Demondi),
Peter Chouteau, and Bartholomew Berthould. Peter Chou-
teau was a brother of Auguste. Berthould, formerly a native
of Bavaria, had obtained naturalization papers in 1809 at
Philadelphia. 10 He was part owner of the St. Louis firm of
Berthould and Chouteau.

The memorial presented to the Board of Commissioners
stated that in 1815 the four claimants had bought a large
quantity of merchandise to trade with the Indians, and that
while engaged in this peaceful activity within the boundaries
of the United States, a Spanish military force arrested the
entire party. The memorial added that the group consist-
ing of Chouteau, Demun, and 20 other Americans were im-
prisoned for a "considerable time" and that their merchan-
dise and furs were confiscated. The claimants expected to be
reimbursed for the value of the seized goods as well as for

10. Document No. 19, Claim No. 37, U.S. Board of Commissioners, 1849-51, NA, RG
76.

268 NEW MEXICO HISTORICAL REVIEW

wages paid to the men they employed. The total amount of
losses was not given. 11

On January 31, 1822, the memorial for Claim No. 587 was
read to the Board of Commissioners and on that same day
the claim was rejected. 12 The Commissioners did not state in
writing the reasons for their decision, but the claimants main-
tained that it was rejected because this type of claim
was not embraced by the provisions of the treaty of 1819 be-
tween the United States and Spain. The decision of the Com-
missioners to reject it, however, released the Spanish govern-
ment from any further obligation in connection with the
Chouteau-Demun claim.

Fortunately for Chouteau and Demun, Mexico had, in the
meantime, won its independence and now had jurisdiction
over the territory where the claim originated, a fact which
led the resourceful traders to start toying with the idea that
if Spain was not liable for the acts that had given rise to their
claim, then the Mexican government should inherit the re-
sponsibility. After all, according to international law, they
argued, a newly established government inherits the privi-
leges as well as the responsibilities and obligations of the
one that preceded it. This line of reasoning made the Chou-
teau-Demun claim, a claim against Mexico not against Spain.
It was even argued by the claimants' counsel that Mexico was
actually separated from Spain in 1808 when Napoleon's army
occupied the Iberian peninsula, and that from that date Mex-
ico had been in substantial exercise of self government. 13

Chouteau and Demun succeeded in advancing their line
of reasoning by enlisting the help of influential Senator
Thomas H. Benton, and Congressman John Scott, both of
Missouri. At least three letters were written, within a 5-day
period, to Secretary of State Henry Clay in connection with

11. Claim No. 587, Disallowed Claims, Vol. 61, United States and Spanish Conven-
tion, 1819, Records of Boundary and Claims Commissions and Arbitrations, NA, RG 76.
(There is a slight inconsistency in statements about the number of persons who were
imprisoned and the number of days they were kept in confinement. The number of
persons imprisoned varies from 20 to 24, and the number of days in confinement from
44 to 48. There had been 45 men in the party at one time. )

12. Minutes of the Board of Commissioners, January 31, 1822, United States and
Spanish Convention, 1819, NA, RG 76.

13. Document No. 6, Claim No. 37, U.S. Board of Commissioners, 1849-61, NA, RG
76.

THE CHOUTEAU-DEMUN EXPEDITION 269

this claim. 14 The first one was written by the claimants them-
selves on May 3, 1825. Among other things, they reminded
the Secretary of State that since negotiations leading toward
the establishment of diplomatic relations with Mexico were
then in progress, this seemed like an appropriate time for
presentation of their claim. The second letter, dated May 4,
1825, was from Senator Thomas H. Benton, and its immedi-
ate purpose was to inform the Secretary of State of the de-
sirability of continuing to extend aid and encouragement to
the claimants. The two claimants are described as being
"gentlemen of the first respectability, allied by blood and
marriage to the best families of upper Louisiana." The third
letter, dated May 8, 1825, was written by Congressman John
Scott. He urged that Chouteau and Demun be rewarded as a
matter of justice as well as to help win the affection of the
French population in that area.

In the years that followed, Chouteau continued to com-
municate at infrequent dates with the Department of State.
On May 10, 1834, he wrote to the Secretary of State, Louis
McLane, concerning his claim, stating that his object in again
addressing the Department was to solicit its official interven-
tion in behalf of an injured citizen. 15 The Chouteau-Demun
claim had by this time been officially presented by the United
States to the Mexican government. 16

During the 1830's, President Jackson recommended the
adoption of vigorous measures to convince Mexico of the
need to settle the claims of American citizens and finally on
April 11, 1839, a convention was signed which provided that
claims of United States citizens against Mexico, arising prior
to that date, should be referred to a Board of Commissioners
composed of two Americans, two Mexicans, and an Umpire
from a neutral country. The Board was given 18 months to
decide upon the justice of the claims and the amount of com-
pensation, if any, due from the Mexican government. The
rules of procedure provided that in case of disagreement be-

14. Miscellaneous Letters, May 3, 4, 8, 1825, General Records of the Department of
State, NA, RG 59.

15. Document No. 23, Claim No. 37, U.S. Board of Commissioners, 1849-51, NA.
RG 76.

16. Ibid. Document No. 12.

270 NEW MEXICO HISTORICAL REVIEW

tween the Commissioners, the dispute should be referred to
the Umpire for a final decision.

The establishment of this Board gave Chouteau and De-
mun their second opportunity to present their claim. This
time it was filed as Claim No. 94, and the claimants were
listed as Auguste P. Chouteau and Julius Demun. On July 21,
1841, their claim was presented to the Commissioners for
settlement, but a decision could not be reached because the
evidence submitted to establish its validity was considered in-
sufficient, and because there was some disagreement as to the
liability of Mexico. When it came again for settlement on
February 8, 1842, the Commissioners disagreed along na-
tional lines. The two American Commissioners regarded it as
a valid claim against Mexico and recommended that the
claimants be awarded $75,495.04, of which $30, 380.74 was
compensation for the seized merchandise and $45,114.30 for
accumulated interest. 17 The two Mexican Commissioners who
were apparently unaware that this claim had already been
presented and rejected as a claim against Spain, strenuously
urged that Spain not Mexico should make idemnification for
the alleged wrongs, if any had been committed. They pointed
out that the acts complained of were committed in 1817 when
Spanish authorities had control of New Mexico. 18 It was diffi-
cult to convince the Mexican Commissioners that their coun-
try should be held responsible for events that occurred before
it existed as an independent nation. Since the Commissioners
could not agree, the Chouteau-Demun claim was referred on
February 22, 1842, just 3 days before the expiration date of
the Board of Commissioners, to the Umpire for a final deci-
sion. The Umpire was unable to examine and render the final
judgment before the expiration date, and so the claim re-
mained undecided. But to the two claimants who had so per-
sistently sought reparation it meant that they would never
know how it ended, since both died before a final judgment
was rendered.

The final settlement came as an aftermath to the War be-
tween Mexico and the United States. The treaty of Guadalupe

17. Ibid. Document No. 7.

18. Ibid. Document No. 3.

THE CHOUTEAU-DEMUN EXPEDITION 271

Hidalgo, which ended the war, provided for the assumption
by the United States of all claims of American citizens
against Mexico which arose prior to the date of signing the
treaty. This included claims which had remained undecided
under the Convention of 1839 and made the Chouteau-Demun
eligible for presentation. A United States Claims Commission
composed of 3 members was established to decide on the
validity of the claims presented and to determine the amount
of compensation due each claimant. Pierre Chouteau, Jr.,
who was named administrator 19 of the estates of Chouteau
and Demun, presented the claim to this Commission where
it was filed as Claim No. 37. Thomas H. Benton, an ardent de-
fender of rights of western pioneers, and one of the most in-
fluential politicians in Washington, served as counsel for the
claimants.

The rules of procedure adopted by the Commission re-
quired that written evidence be submitted to prove that the
value of the seized property was really $30,380.74 as stated
in the memorial. Some difficulty was encountered in satisfy-
ing this requirement since key documents could not be made
available. Pierre Chouteau, Jr., maintained that satisfactory
documentary proof had already been placed in the hands of
the Executive and Legislative Branches of the Government.
According to him, Governor Clark transmitted this documen-
tary proof to the Secretary of State in 1817. 20 The proof
which supposedly consisted of a detailed and authenticated
account of the actual outlay and capital expended for the ex-
pedition was now lost or misplaced. Pierre Chouteau, Jr., de-
clared that no copies of these important records were kept
by the claimants and added that "after the lapse of so many
years, the memory of witnesses cannot be relied to supply
their place." He expressed high hopes that the Executive and
the Legislative Branches would find the misplaced docu-
ments. 21

Thorough searches for the missing records were made in

19. Ibid. Document No. 6.

20. This refers to the map and accompanying documents, which Demun sent to
Governor Clark. See footnote No. 9.

21. Document No. 1, Claim No. 37, U.S. Board of Commissioners, 1849-51, NA, RG
76.

272 NEW MEXICO HISTORICAL REVIEW

the Office of the Senate, the House of Representatives, and in
the Department of State. 22 The result of these searches was
submitted in writing to the Claims Commission. The Secre-
tary of the Senate reported that a search had been conducted
in the file of the Senate for "Statements marked A, B, C, and
D of expenditures of Chouteau and Demun," but that the
papers in question had not been found. The Clerk of the House
of Representatives reported that a careful search was made
in the files of the Office and the Journals of the House, but
that he could find no evidence that any papers had been with-
drawn from the House. The Secretary of State, Daniel Web-
ster, reported that a thorough but fruitless search had been
made in the Department for the desired documents.

Since the original documents could not be located, the only
alternative was to submit affidavits from persons who were
familiar with the events that had taken place in 1815. At
least three such affidavits were prepared and submitted to
the Commission. 23 The first one was a sworn statement by
John B. Saisy (Saify) , a clerk employed by the St. Louis firm
of Berthould and Chouteau, the firm from which Auguste P.
Chouteau and Julius Demun had purchased their supplies
for the expedition. Saisy declared that from a study of the
records and memoranda made many years ago, he found that
the account of Chouteau and Demun with the firm of Ber-
thould and Chouteau, for goods and money advanced for the
expedition, was $26,700. The clerk also stated that he knew
that Demun arrived in St. Louis from the expedition in a
destitute condition. The information in the second affidavit
was furnished by Etienne Provost, who declared that he was
one of the men employed by Chouteau and Demun to go on
the expedition and that of the 42 men who participated only
two others were still alive, neither of whom was living in the
state of Missouri. He added that the commanders of the expe-
dition, Mr. Chouteau and Mr. Demun lost everything, their
goods, horses, furs, lead, and powder, and that he believed
that the value of the goods amounted at least to the sum of
$30,000. The third affidavit was prepared by Julius Demun in

22.lbid. Document Nos. 9, 10, and 24.
23. Ibid. Document No. 13.

THE CHOUTEAU-DEMUN EXPEDITION 273

1841. He declared that on his arrival from Santa Fe, he was
without a shirt, leggings, or shoes, and that these articles of
clothing were supplied him by the kindness of an Osage In-
dian chief before his entry into St. Louis.

These sworn statements were submitted to the Claims
Commission as proof of the justice of the Chouteau-Demun
claim, and as evidence of the amount of losses sustained by
the leaders of the expedition.

After examining and evaluating the evidence the three
Commissioners rendered their decision. They found the claim
of Pierre Chouteau, Jr., Administrator of the estates of
Auguste P. Chouteau and Julius Demun, to be a valid claim
and awarded the estate $81,772.00, of which $30,380.00 was
compensation for the seized merchandise, and $51,392.00 for
accumulated interest. 24 A United States Treasury warrant,
No. 4735, for the total amount was issued on May 17, 1851,
bringing the Chouteau-Demun claim to its final conclusion. 25

24. Awards, Vol. I, pp. 58-59, U.S. Board of Commissioners, 1949-51, NA, RG 76.

25. Treasury Warrants, 1851, Records of the General Accounting Office, NA, RG
217.

[See Map in Notes and Documents, Pp. 347.]

FRANK BOND: GENTLEMAN SHEEPHERDER
OF NORTHERN NEW MEXICO, 1883-1915

By FRANK H. GRUBBS
6. Bond & Nohl Company

THE Bond & Nohl Company was formally organized on
Friday, April 6, 1906, with 50,000 shares of one dollar
capital stock, issued 16,000 shares each to Frank Bond,
George Bond, and Louis F. Nohl, and 2,000 shares to Jose
Leandro Martinez. 1 Frank Bond was president of the new
corporation, George W. Bond was vice-president, and Louis
F. Nohl, salaried at $140 per month, 2 was secretary, treas-
urer, and general manager. The home of the new company
was Espanola, New Mexico, where as an extension of the
partnership of G. W. Bond & Bro. it engaged for thirty-eight
years in a more widely diversified field of business than any
of the other Bond interests.

The corporate organization of the Bond & Nohl Company
was created in 1906, but its practical beginning was in 1900
when Louis F. Nohl joined G. W. Bond & Bro. in a profit-
sharing capacity. To carry the matter further, it may even
be said that it was born of evolution rather than creation.
Since Frank Bond continued to operate his own business
from Espanola, actually headquartering with Bond & Nohl,
it is probable that the townspeople were unaware of any
change in organization other than the name on the front of
the store.

Louis Nohl entered the new organization under a cloud
of tragedy. Just a month after the new company was formed,
his first wife died, leaving Nohl with their six children. 3 At
this time he had a net worth of $4,886 which by July 31, 1909,
the date of Nohl's second marriage, had grown to $17,833.17

1. Stock Certificates (in the files of Frank Bond & Son, Inc., Albuquerque).

2. Record of Minutes (in the files of Frank Bond & Son, Inc., Albuquerque).

3. Miscellaneous papers re estate of Louis F. Nohl, Bond Papers, loc. cit.

274

FRANK BOND 275

due entirely to his participation in profits of the Bond & Nohl
Company. 4 Nohl received his stock interest in the company
in exchange for his personal note, and in 1909 G. W. Bond &
Bro. held this note in the amount of $12,078.25. 5 Thus it was
that Louis Nohl was received into the Bond management
family on the same generous terms that so many others were
fortunate enough to enjoy.

Leandro Martinez, the minority stockholder, was gen-
erally employed as an outside man, or general foreman, but
the way in which he acquired his stock is unknown. However,
when he left the firm in 1913, he surrendered his 2,000 shares
of stock. These were returned to Bond & Nohl in January,
1914, and were carried thenceforth as treasury stock. There
is no record of how much he received at the time he sur-
rendered his interest, and after leaving Bond & Nohl he
joined with Leo Hersch to provide backing to Morris and
Clark in putting up store buildings in Espanola. Frank Bond
rather expected Leandro to interfere some with the lamb
business, 6 but if he did there was never any further mention
of the matter although he was later suspected of buying wool
for Charles Ilfeld. 7

At the end of 1906, the first year of business, the mer-
chandise stock of Bond & Nohl was valued at almost $63,000,
but merchandise inventories throughout the period from
1907 through 1915 were generally maintained at a somewhat
lower but relatively constant level of about $55,000. An item-
ization of the more significant items in the 1906 inventory
has been located, and these commodities are listed in Table 36
as representing typical investments and suggesting the large
quantities of staple goods that were carried.

Inventory activity remained fairly steady from 1906
through 1915 as shown in Table 37. There being no way to

4. Ibid.
6. Ibid.

6. Letter Book No. 53, June 17, 1914, p. 43. The individuals from whom Bond cus-
tomarily purchased sheep and wool were usually referred to as "customers," and at-
tempts by outsiders to trade with those customers was considered to be interference.
The modern term would be "competition," but this term today does not carry the
overtones of knavery that seem to have been implicit in "interference." Bond used
both terms, and his usage implies a distinction in this sense.

7. Letter Book No. 57, March 24, 1915, p. 450.

276 NEW MEXICO HISTORICAL REVIEW

determine average inventory levels, the inventory turnover
has been computed by relating year-end inventory levels to
the cost of merchandise sold.

TABLE 36

MAJOR COMMODITY ITEMS IN
BOND & NOHL INVENTORY, 1906

Quantity Item Price Amount

181,291 Ibs Pinons $ .07 $12,690.37

24,000 Ibs 1st Grade Flour 1.75 420.00

115,500 Ibs 2nd Grade Flour 1.60 1,732.50

84,449 Ibs Wheat 1.00 844.49

Black Leaf . . . 1,267.31

Surplus Stock . . . 3,000.00

a. Shoes purchased on account of an advancing market.

TABLE 37
BOND & NOHL INVENTORY TURNOVER

Year Turnover

1906 1.9

1907 3.1

1908 2.3

1909

1910 2.4

1911 2.3

1912 2.6

1913 2.7

1914 2.3

1915 2.6

a. Sales data not available.

The Bond & Nohl sales and profit data shown in Table 38
indicate the size of the mercantile business for the years
through 1915 and represent a wide variety of items as might
be expected in a general mercantile establishment. There
were staples, 8 alfalfa, hay, caskets, 9 pencil sharpeners in-

8. Typical prices were: flour, $1.25 per sack; granulated sugar, $1.00 for 14 Ib.
sack; coffee, $.25 Ib. ; lard compound, $1.35 for 10 Ib. pail; coal oil, $.35 gal.; laundry
soap (brown or white), $.05 bar. Letter Book No. 5S, June 16, 1914, p. 25.

9. Itemized expenses for the burial of a deceased pensioner in 1914 included $4.10
for the coffin and $6.00 fee for the priest. (Letter Book No. 5S, July 4, 1914, p. 261.)
In 1881 the cost of burying an indigent in Santa Fe County was $30. Sister Blandina
Segale, At the End of the Santa Fe Trail (Columbus, Ohio: The Columbian Press, 1932),
p. 180.

FRANK BOND 277

TABLE 38

BOND & NOHL SALES AND PROFIT ON MERCHANDISE
(dollars in thousands)

Year Cash Credit Total Gross Profit

Sales Sales Sales on Merchandise

1906 $46.5 $100.7 $147.2 $27.3

1907 49.8 133.3 183.1 31.3

1908 43.1 100.6 143.7 21.3

1909 ... ... ... 22.4

1910 57.2 103.2 160.4 25.4

1911 55.1 106.2 161.3 28.1

1912 51.6 120.3 171.9 27.3

1913 55.3 115.1 170.4 27.8

1914 40.5 106.2 146.7 33.6

1915 48.5 114.2 162.7 22.7

a. Gross profits on wool and on sheep trading are reported in Tables 39 and 40
respectively. Profits are summarized and net profits are shown in Table 42.

eluding- coupons for sharpening the sharpener, clothing,
meats, Indian pottery, chile, blankets, Bain wagons, 10 guns,
ammunition, fencing, buggies, Victor Talking machines, Vic-
trola records, 11 refrigerators, patent medicines, 12 and
pinons. 13 Some commodities were handled in large lots, par-
ticularly such items as hay, beans, chile, and pinons. 14

Every effort was made to fill orders for almost any item.
Once a customer ordered a heater, and in asking the supplier
to quote a price it was requested that he add 25 per cent to
the price of the heater so that they could show the customer
the quotation telegram. 15 If the item could not be obtained
or was not in stock, the order was turned over to the Espanola
Mercantile Company, 16 and the customer was so notified.
Goods were never consigned, and although both cash and
credit business was conducted, there was only one price. For

10. The profit on a wagon was about $10. Letter Book No. 58, May 17, 1915.

11. One order for Victrola records to the Knight-Campbell Music Company in Denver
included such favorites as "Ballin" the Jack," "Memphis Blues," "Rose of the Mountain
Trail," "Peg O* My Heart," "Roamin' in the Gloamiri'," "She is My Daisy," "Italian
Street Song," and "Oh, It's Nice To Get Up In the Morning, But It's Nicer To Stay In
Bed." Letter Book No. 58, July 1, 1915, p. 703.

12. Wine of Cardui and Black Draught. Letter Book No. 59, July 13, 1915, p. 133.

13. Letter Books, passim.

14. Supra, Table 86.

15. Letter Book No. 50, December 19, 1913, p. 526.

16. Ibid., October 20, 1913, p. 134 ; infra, chap. xi.

278 NEW MEXICO HISTORICAL REVIEW

a time a dual pricing structure was tried under which
separate prices for cash and for credit were maintained, but
finding it to be completely unworkable, it was abandoned. 17

Dealing in a wide variety of merchandise had its head-
aches as well as its profits, particularly in connection with
fairly large commodity transactions. Pinons in New Mexico
are a highly seasonal and uncertain crop, harvested by hand
in the vast stretches of pinon forests that cover much of the
central and northern New Mexico mountains. Pinons are
highly sensitive to the effects of wind and weather so that the
crop is frequently almost nonexistent. There was usually a
large demand for pinon nuts by the eastern specialty houses,
and an investment in pinons could often be held for some
time against an advance in the market for the nuts keep well
without any special warehousing requirements.

Charles E. Doll, of Santa Fe, had such a pinon ware-
house, 18 and in 1913 Bond & Nohl entered into an agreement
with him under which they were each to purchase pinon nuts,
sell them, and share in the profits. 19 This agreement covered
all pinon nuts that Doll should buy, regardless of where he
bought them. The agreement was a verbal one, and at the
end of the season Frank Bond found that he had bought all
the pinons and made all the profits while Doll ostensibly had
bought no pinons and made no money for Bond. Satisfied that
Doll was not living up to his agreement, Bond put a man out
on the road to make further inquiries, and found that Doll
had actually sold and shipped large quantities of pinons with-
out sharing the profits with Bond. Pressed, Doll would not
admit that he had made any sales and would not pay the Bond
claim. In November of the following year Bond offered to
settle the account if Doll would remit $3,500 cash and threat-
ened to bring suit if he didn't pay within a week. A. B. Rene-
han, of the Santa Fe law firm of Renehan and Wright, was
representing Bond in the matter, and Doll immediately
waited upon Renehan ; presenting evidence of further ship-
ments, he asked Renehan to represent him. Louis Nohl felt

17. Letter Book No. 59, August 28, 1915, p. 525.

18. Interview with J. E. Davenport.

19. Letter Book No. 56, December 7, 1914, p. 240.

FRANK BOND 279

that an old grievance between Doll and himself had influenced
Doll to take the position he did, and Nohl had evidence that
Doll had sold at least 110,000 pounds of pinons to Birdsong
Brothers in New York. He promptly wrote them asking for
details of the shipments, but they refused and then promptly
filed a claim against Bond & Nohl. The claim received a cold
reception at Espanola. At this point Bond went to work in
earnest. He wrote letters to forty-seven fruit and nut dealers
in New York, San Francisco, Chicago, Los Angeles, and St.
Louis asking for information on pinon transactions with
Doll. Most of the inquiries were fruitless, but one dealer in
New York City reported that they had bought 240,000 pounds
of pinons from Doll at prices ranging up to nine cents per
hundred.

Although Doll had sold at least 350,000 pounds of pinons,
he still didn't pay Bond his share of the profits, and by May,
1915, Bond was about willing to settle for $1,000 out of sheer
exasperation. Settlement was made shortly thereafter, but
Bond paid the attorneys' fee of $250. 20 Referring mildly to
Doll's "cussedness," Bond commented : "We are glad to know
that Charlie realizes that he has acted dishonorably in this
matter and that he is truly repentant. I just wish to say to
you, that we intend to overlook this unkindness on Charlie's
part to a very large extent." 21

It is apparent from an examination of the sales data in
Table 37, supra, that a large part of the sales were on credit.
Terms of sale on staple items were usually 2 per cent for cash
in ten days, but on at least one occasion a customer deducted
a cash discount on an invoice that was ten months old. He
didn't get away with it. 22

All the stores in the Bond system sold a great deal of their

20. Letter Book No. 56, November 20, 1914, p. 104 ; ibid., November 26, 1914, p. 149 ;
ibid., December 2, 1914, p. 184 ; ibid., December 7, 1914, p. 240 ; ibid., December 17, 1914,
p. 309 ; ibid., December 29, 1914, p. 392 ; ibid., January 27, 1915, p. 610 ; ibid., January 30,
1915, p. 644 ; Letter Book No. 57, March 9, 1915, p. 314 ; ibid., March 10, 1915, pp. 344-
348 ; ibid., March 15, 1915, pp. 368ff. ; ibid., March 17, 1915, p. 388 ; ibid.. March 18, 1915,
p. 424 ; ibid., April 5, 1915, p. 520 ; Letter Book No. 58, May 19, 1915, p. 198 ; ibid., June
1, 1915, p. 639 ; ibid., June 1, 1915, p. 346.

21. Letter Book No. 58, June 1, 1915, p. 342.

22. Letter Book No. 56, February 2, 1915, p. 689 ; Letter Book No. 50, October 11,
1913, p. 36.

280 NEW MEXICO HISTORICAL REVIEW

merchandise on credit, of course, and it was standard prac-
tice to value the receivable to reflect anticipated collectibles.
From 1900 they were valued at ninety cents on the dollar,
but in 1907 the valuation of accounts receivable was reduced
to 85 per cent of book value. Thereafter, the offset against
receivables varied percentagewise from year to year, being
as high as 20 per cent and as low as 10 per cent. 23 These varia-
tions resulted from a careful and realistic analysis of the
receivables for the purpose of determining exactly which ones
would and which ones probably would not be collected.

A great deal can be learned about a man by observing the
way in which he conducts one of the most sensitive aspects of
his business credit. Frank Bond recognized the importance
of collecting those sums which were due him, yet he mani-
fested a great deal of patience and understanding as he pur-
sued his due. Respect for his own rights was interwoven with
his respect for the dignity and honor of his customers and
friends. He utilized both the Bradstreet Company and the
R. G. Dun Company for special investigations and as his
main source of credit reference. 24 Collections were normally
handled directly, but instances did sometimes arise that made
the services of attorneys, collection agents, or investigators
desirable. Early in 1915, for instance, Frank Bond was in-
formed that Alfredo Lucero, of Santa Cruz, had mortgaged
his merchandise stock for which he had not yet paid Bond &
Nohl. Bond demanded immediate settlement of the account,
whereupon Lucero denied that the stock was mortgaged. The
Bradstreet and Dun companies were asked to investigate the
facts, absolving Lucero. 25

These concerns were also asked upon occasion to make
collections, 26 although relatively complex collection problems
were sometimes handled more directly. On one occasion R. M.
Willis of Carson, New Mexico, had fallen behind in his ac-

28. Records, loc. cit.

24. Propositions received from other companies not known personally by Bond were
given scant consideration if they were not listed with Dun or Bradstreet. Letter Book
No. 58, June 1. 1915, p. 350.

25. Letter Book No. 57, February 25, 1915, p. 210; ibid., February 27, 1915, pp.
234-235.

26. Ibid., February 27, 1915, p. 234.

FRANK BOND 281

count, and Frank Bond undertook to help him find a buyer
for some water-soaked and alkali-covered ranch property so
that Willis could pay his account. Bond finally accepted with
some reluctance the deed to the ranch and continued to search
for a buyer. 27 The American Adjusting Company in San
Francisco, California, was used occasionally for collecting
notes and accounts as also were attorneys. 28 Judge Julius C.
Gunter in Denver, Colorado, collected some of the largest
notes that were handled, and Benjamin M. Read in Santa Fe
did some collection work.

Judge Read handled one assignment concerning the col-
lection of a number of small accounts receivable that Bond
& Nohl acquired along with the stock of the Seligman Dry
Goods Company from Adolf Seligman of Santa Fe. They were
turned over to Read for collection on a percentage basis, and
the petty ledger was forwarded to him. Some difficulty arose,
however, when Seligman made some strenuous efforts to
collect the accounts himself even though they were no longer
his. Bond referred the matter to E. A. Johnson, an attorney
with Renehan and Wright, but later Bond addressed himself
directly to Seligman, stating that he was sorry to hear of his
condition and saying that : "It has never been our policy to
push any man to the wall. I would suggest that you do not
worry about these little matters and I surely hope that your
financial condition may improve." 29

Notwithstanding Bond's usual caution, a gypsy by the
name of Alejandro Nicholas walked into the store one day
and presented an endorsed check for $8.92 in payment of
some goods. The air in the store must have been somewhat
strained when it became necessary for Bond to write the
First National Bank in Santa Fe asking them to cancel Bond
& Nohl's endorsement, collect from the gypsy, and return the
check. 30

Frank Bond was always willing to cooperate as much as

27. Letter Book No. 58, May 1, 1915, p. 18 ; ibid., May 7, 1915, p. 86 ; ibid., May 19,
1915, p. 196 ; ibid., June 11, 1915, p. 465.

28. Letter Book No. 57, April 12, 1915, p. 600 ; ibid., April 29, 1915, p. 701.

29. Letter Book No. 58, May 15, 1915, p. 137 ; ibid., May 21, 1915, p. 248 ; ibid., June
7, 1915, p. 430 ; ibid., June 14, 1915, p. 510.

80. Ibid., June 14, 1915, p. 486.

282 NEW MEXICO HISTORICAL REVIEW

possible with deserving people who sincerely worked to get
themselves out of difficulty, and upon receipt of a ten-dollar
payment from Jose Quintana, Bond wrote to him: "If you
continue paying on your note right along we will help you
out some on the interest." 31

Possibly the most interesting, frustrating, and colorful
collection problem that ever faced the respectable pillars of
business in the offices of Bond & Nohl concerned two irascible
spinsters who lived together on a ranch located about six
miles south of Espanola the Misses Bryan and True. Frank
Bond was wary of these two testy ladies as early as 1907
when he warned C. L. Pollard : "There is no use having any
Quixotic ideas in regard to this lady [Miss True]. She has
taken advantage of your friendship." 32 By late 1914 they had
accumulated an overdue account with Bond & Nohl amount-
ing to $1,000 for which they gave their note. 33 The note finally
became as badly in arrears as were the accounts in the first
place, and the note was turned over to Renehan and Wright
for collection. The attorneys prepared suit to be served on the
two choleric delinquents by F. A. Geis, Bond's stenographer.
Thereupon Miss True paid $250, with the result that Judge
Wright was asked to hold the suit in abeyance until the first
of the year when the note would be paid. In January, when
they had not paid the balance, Nohl asked that judgment be
entered against them in accordance with their agreement
when the suit was postponed. Shortly thereafter, then, a
check was received; this was followed by another payment
which, however, was in the form of a check payable only on
condition that the suit not be prosecuted. By the end of Janu-
ary they were trying to collect the attorney's fee from Miss
True. In February they complained that nothing had been
done and asked A. B. Renehan to force another payment. By
the end of March the perplexed Bond and Nohl were wonder-
ing what to do next. They wrote Miss True warning that she
had until April 3 to pay the balance, and to the relief of all
a few days later Judge Wright must have had a stern session

31. Ibid., May 18, 1916, p. 160.

82. Letter Booh No. 6, September 17, 1907.

33. Interview with J. E. Davenport.

FRANK BOND 283

with Miss True for he reported that he had adjusted the
matter satisfactorily. This, however, was not to be. In May,
Nohl complained to his attorneys that they hadn't yet re-
ceived anything from Miss Clara D. True or Miss Bryan, and
in June a judgment was finally taken against Miss True who
promptly appealed to Frank Bond for just sixty days' more
time in which to pay the balance which was now down to
$550. He agreed. In August, after the sixty days were past,
Miss True tried another tack. She wrote directly to Frank
Bond, lodging complaints against Louis Nohl. Bond replied :

I look for Mr. Nohl to be here Saturday of this week, and you
can take up this matter with him, or if you prefer to leave a
message with me I will surely see that it is promptly delivered
to him. ... I take no part whatever in the management of
this business, except as regards the purchase of sheep and
wool. I do not interfere with Mr. Nohl one particle, and we
adopt the same policy with all our managers. We look to them
solely for results.

It has always been the policy of Bond & Nohl Company
and all the Bond stores to treat everybody honorably, cour-
teously and considerately, and I should hate to think that you
have been treated otherwise. You know that we would not
intentionally do you an injustice and that we fully appreciate
your good will and friendship. 34

In September, Bond tried to shake her off again by asking
that further correspondence be addressed to the Bond & Nohl
Company. The matter was finally cleared up sometime later
that year when Miss True's foreman was driving a herd of
her cattle northward through Espanola. John Davenport,
determined to settle the matter, simply seized the cattle and
closed the account. 35

Some minor activity in hides and pelts produced small
profits, but they never exceeded $1,000 a year. The same is
true of a number of miscellaneous minor profit-producing
transactions that occasionally occurred outside the merchan-
dise business such as interest, collection of old accounts, divi-
dends on stock owned, etc.

34. Letter Book No. 59, August 26, 1915, p. 506.

35. Letter Book No. 56, passim ; Letter Book No. 57, passim ; Letter Book No. 58,
passim; Letter Book No. 59, passim; interview with J. E. Davenport.

284 NEW MEXICO HISTORICAL REVIEW

The buying and selling of wool was generally handled by
G. W. Bond & Bro. and later by Frank Bond. However, Bond
& Nohl was a party to the Bond-Warshauer wool agree-
ment, 36 and while outside wool activity was not extensive,
some wool profits were earned as revealed in Table 39.

TABLE 39
BOND & NOHL WOOL PROFITS

Year Amount

1909 $7,003.69

1910 1,852.47

1911 2,916.92

1912 6,411.85

1913 .00

1914 365.61

1915 4,251.31

Bond & Nohl was Frank Bond's sheep trading agency,
but G. W. Bond & Bro. owned all the rented sheep except
those owned by the other stores. Bond & Nohl seems to have
had no sheep out on rent with partidarios. On the other hand,
after Bond & Nohl was organized and took over the sheep
trading and feeding operations, G. W. Bond & Bro. discon-
tinued all sheep except on the rental side.

All sheep trading and winter feeding was carried on by
Bond & Nohl in a three-way partnership with Fred War-
shauer in Antonito, Colorado, and E. S. Leavenworth in
Wood River, Nebraska. Under the terms of this arrangement,
Leavenworth received half the profits, Warshauer one-fourth,
and Bond & Nohl one-fourth. 37 Since Frank and George Bond
each owned one-third of Bond & Nohl, they each then realized
only one-twelfth of the profits on sheep. Fred Warshauer
bought all his sheep for joint account with Bond & Nohl and
divided his profits evenly with them, so the Bonds by virtue
of their ownership each received one-sixth of the profits on
Warshauer's trading. 38 Leavenworth operated the feeding
ranch at Wood River, Nebraska, and the records leave no

86. Supra, chap. ill.

37. Letter Book No. 6, September 19, 1910.

38. Ibid.

FRANK BOND 285

indication that he engaged in any sheep trading, at least
insofar as the Bonds were concerned.

It appears that the Bond-Warshauer-Leavenworth agree-
ment did not come into existence until about 1908, for prior
to that time feeding and trading accounts were maintained
with Corlett, Everitt, Leavenworth alone, Antonio Lopez,
L. C. Butscher, and Ed Sargent. 39 Fred Warshauer died in
1913, and Leavenworth's health broke down the following
year, so the probable period of the agreement appears to
have been from 1908 until about 1913 ; but Bond & Nohl con-
tinued after that time to split sheep profits with the
Warshauer-McClure Sheep Company, dealing then with Will
McClure. 40

The Bond & Nohl sheep profits are shown in Table 40
for the period through 1915. In order to approximate the
total profits on sheep trading activities after giving effect
to the joint agreements, the Bond & Nohl profits are extended
by appropriate factors.

TABLE 40

NET PROFITS ON SHEEP TRADING
(even dollars)

Year Bond & Nohl Factor Total

Profits Profits

1906 $ 8,149 2 $16,298

1907 6,755 2 13,510

1908 2,552 4 10,208

1909 14,078 4 56,312

1910 6,893 4 27,572

1911 (2,714) 4 (10,856)

1912 11,138 4 44,552

1913 4,688 4 18,752

1914 3,922 2 7,844

1915 7,112 2 14,224

a. The 1911 loss is somewhat open to question because it results from the fact that
the profits on the 1911 lambs sales were not realized until 1912 plus the inclusion as an
expense something over $5,000 in unidentified sheep feeding costs that possibly should
have been charged to the feeding accounts rather than to the 1911 sheep schedule.

The handling of large numbers of sheep had its physical
difficulties as well as the problems inherent in the crude mar-

89. Records, loc. cit.

40. Letter Book No. 53, July 23, 1914, p. 439.

286 NEW MEXICO HISTORICAL REVIEW

ket analysis of the day and in the financing of sheep trading.
Sheep were trailed from their origin to the shipping points
where they were loaded into freight cars. Up to the turn of
the century sheep trading had been done by the head, but the
practice changed about that time to selling them by weight, 41
so the sheep had to be weighed as well as counted prior to
loading them aboard the cars. For these purposes, Bond &
Nohl maintained a camp house, scale, 42 and loading pens at
Servilleta which was on the Denver and Rio Grande Railroad
in Taos County thirty-eight miles due north of Espanola and
twenty-two miles northwest of Taos. 43

Frank Bond frequently supervised the loading operations
personally, arising about three o'clock in the morning to lead
the crews himself. He is clearly remembered for the furious
pace he kept, and it is recalled that he never slowed down
all day long below a fast dogtrot. 44 Loading sheep demanded
advance arrangements with the railroad to have cars avail-
able, and these arrangements provide us with the only indica-
tion of the number of sheep traded by Bond & Nohl. In
October, 1913, the requirement was for thirty railroad cars
per day at the Servilleta shipping point for three successive
days. At about three hundred head per car, this one shipment
numbered approximately 27,000 head of sheep and 1913
was a hard year. 45

Handling sheep involved other difficulties too. Sheep not
only have more different kinds of parasites than any other
domestic animal, but also suffer more serious effects from
them. They have stomach worms, nodular worms in the in-
testines, tapeworms, flukes, and the particularly repulsive
head grubs that afflict feeder lambs. 46 New Mexico was par-
ticularly honored with a disease known as the trembles or

41. Wentworth, op. eft., p. 362. Pricing and selling was by weight ; contracting was
done by the head but with restrictions as to maximum, minimum, and average weights.

42. Two Fairbanks-Morse scales of six tons capacity each. Letter Book No. 58,
December 3, 1914, p. 203.

48. U. S., Department of the Interior, G. L. O., Map of Territory of New Mexico.
1908.

44. Interview with John F. McCarthy, Taos, New Mexico, January 10, 1958.

45. Letter Book No. SO, October 11, 1913, p. 40; ibid., October 16, 1913, p. 81 : ibid.,
October 20, 1913, p. 105.

46. Wentworth, op. eit., p. 463.

FRANK BOND 287

alkaline disease that was caused by eating goldenrod. 47 Sore
lips, too, were a source of worry, and in 1914 more than 900
of Bond's sheep on feed in Nebraska were afflicted, with some
losses. 48 In addition to these parasites, there was foot-rot
which reached its climax in 1906 and scab, or mange, which
is the widest spread, oldest, and most prevalent of all sheep
diseases. This malady, that results not only in shedding of
wool but also in death to the animal, was not effectively con-
trolled until about the turn of the century when the use of
nicotine or lime-sulphur dips was found to be effective. 49

The New Mexico Sheep Sanitary Board, organized in
1897, established and maintained scab control in New Mex-
ico, and in 1899 Solomon F. Luna of Los Lunas, W. S. Prager
of Roswell, and Harry F. Lee of San Mateo were elected presi-
dent, vice-president, and secretary, respectively. At the same
time, fifty inspectors were appointed with the duty of in-
specting every flock in their county annually and with the
power to quarantine infected sheep and inspect all incoming
and outgoing sheep. G. W. Bond, then in Wagon Mound, and
Frank Bond in Espanola, were among these inspectors, 50 and
since this was mostly an actual working job, additional duties
devolved upon the brothers, not only in the nature of a public
service but also in the interest of protecting their own flocks.

In 1904 all the sheep in the Territory were ordered
dipped, the U. S. Department of Agriculture threatened a
general quarantine of New Mexico, 51 and general dipping
orders were then issued as necessary. Bond & Nohl did not
support the cost of dipping the flocks of their customers, nor
indeed did G. W. Bond & Bro. pay for dipping their sheep
on rent. This was the individual flockmaster's responsi-
bility. 52 However, they did, upon request of the inspectors,
order the necessary materials sulphur from Gross-Kelly and
lime from the state penitentiary at Santa Fe. 53 There were

47. Ibid.

48. Letter Book No. 56, December 31. 1914. p. 418.

49. Wentworth, op. eft., pp. 448-457.

50. Ibid., pp. 458-459.

51. Letter Book No. 6, August 23, 1904, p. 82.

52. Letter Book No. 57, March 30, 1915, p. 485.

63. Ibid., March 23, 1915, p. 487.

288 NEW MEXICO HISTORICAL REVIEW

other minor chores for Bond too. In order to reach the nearest
dipping plant, the flocks sometimes had to cross National
Forest Land, and so Bond usually arranged for the necessary
crossing permits. 54 After 1909, however, Bond & Nohl owned
and operated their own sheep dipping plant at Espanola. 55

Last, but not least of the sheepman's woes was the
weather. The hard winter of 1914-1915 cost the growers
about 30 per cent of the ewes in the Espanola area. Bond lost
1,777 sheep in Sandoval county and 1,500 more as far south
as Bernalillo County. The vast Navajo country to the west
was hard hit too. John Davenport estimated that losses in
the area north of Cabezon might run upwards of 10,000, and
Frank Bond had Walter Connell privately look into the pos-
sibility of buying up the sheep pelts that would result. 56

Normal sheep trading contemplated buying sheep and
lambs in the spring and selling them in the fall at a profit,
both purchase and sale being started in the spring and con-
tinuing in diminishing degree through the summer. Sheep
received in the fall were immediately shipped out to the
buyers, but it was also frequently profitable to hold lambs
over, fatten them on feed during the winter months, and sell
them early the following year. Indeed, winter feeding was
a very important operation in the Bond scheme of things.

The earliest positive indication of sheep being fed during
the winter was at the end of 1894 when the Wagon Mound
store had sheep on feed at Ft. Collins, Colorado. However,
G. W. Bond & Bro. had a very small sheep investment at the
end of 1893 which, being at the end of December, must have
represented sheep on feed although probably not in formal
feed lots. As early as 1902 sheep were being fed with C. B.
Reynolds in Nebraska, and during the winter of 1906-1907
Bond & Nohl fed sheep jointly with four others. The follow-

54. Letter Book No. 59, August 11, 1915, p. 379.

55. Records, loc. cit.

56. Letter Book No. 57, March 9, 1915, p. 311; ibid., April 28, 1915, p. 700; Letter
Book No. 58, May 18, 1915, p. 169 ; Letter Book No. 59, Augrust 7, 1915, p. 340.

Sheep losses in New Mexico were reported to have been as high as 40 per cent during
the winter of 1904-1905, and the editor of The American Shepherd's Bulletin was highly
critical of sheep handling in the state. He commented :

"It . . . [the] sheep owners would try the experiment of providing adequate feed and
shelter for their flocks, the result might be very interesting." The American Shepherd's
Bulletin, X, No. 4 (April, 1905), 394 (18).

FRANK BOND 289

ing year they had their first joint feeding account with E. S.
Leavenworth.

In 1909 the Bonds acquired a 270-acre ranch at Wood
River, Nebraska, for winter sheep feeding, 57 but the invest-
ment was carried on Frank Bond's personal books and not
by Bond & Nohl even though the latter was Frank Bond's
feeding agency. During these years Bond & Nohl fed sheep
at Wood River with four men E. S. Leavenworth, W. C.
Scott, H. M. Russell, and H. S. Eaton. Wood River, however,
was being used extensively by New Mexico sheep men for
winter feeding long before the Bonds bought their ranch
there ; 11,500 head were shipped out of Santa Fe in Novem-
ber, 1904, for the feed lots in Wood River, 58 but the extent
to which Bond participated in Wood River feeding at that
time is undisclosed.

In addition to the ranch property, other feed lots were
rented from the Dawson County National Bank in Lexington,
Nebraska, for the modest sum of fifty dollars a year. 59 These
were the lots used by H. M. Russell where in 1914-1915 he fed
8,801 sheep and 19 goats.

The winter of 1914-1915 was typical of winter feeding
even though it was by no means the biggest. Indeed, in
August Frank Bond indicated that he would not feed many
sheep that winter because he feared that prices would drop
after the war. The United States had not yet been drawn
into the war, and the general opinion in northern New Mex-
ico was that the war would not last more than three months,
or six months at the outside. But Bond did feel that if the war
lasted until after the sheep market in the spring, feeding
could be profitable. The belief that it would in fact last must
have developed for he did finally feed about 28,000 head of
sheep in Nebraska that winter. 60

Clay, Robinson and Company was a livestock commission

57. Letter Book No. 6, March 16, 1910.

58. "The largest shipment of sheep that ever left Santa Fe at one time was sent to
Wood River, Neb., Nov. 7, [1904] over the Denver & Rio Grande. They were driven into
the city and filled 36 cars, being 7,000 in number. About 4,500 more head were driven
over the Santa Fe Central for the same destination the next day, coming from Estancia."
The American Shepherd's Bulletin, IX, No. 12 (December, 1904), 1306 (98).

59. Letter Book No. 59, August 81, 1915, p. 545.

60. Letter Book No. 55, August 25, 1914, p. 7 ; ibid., October 21, 1914, p. 625.

290 NEW MEXICO HISTORICAL REVIEW

firm in Denver, operated by John Clay, Charles H. Robinson,
and William H. Forrest, which began discounting livestock
paper with the First National Bank of Chicago not long after
the Bonds came to New Mexico and through which Frank
Bond financed much of his winter feeding. 61 In order to
finance his feeding in the winter of 1914, Bond borrowed
$65,000 from that firm at 9 per cent interest 62 and agreed to
ship them all the sheep on feed the following spring. The
notes securing feeding advances were signed by the feeder,
but Bond endorsed them. They were paid in sheep, the note
being credited with each shipment until they were paid. Sub-
sequent credits were deposited directly to the Bond & Nohl
account in the Pueblo Bank. 63

The feeding with H. M. Russell and W. C. Scott in 1914
was divided into thirds equal interests being held by Bond
& Nohl, the Warshauer-McClure Sheep Company, and the
G. W. Bond & Bro. Mercantile Company in Encino. The
Leavenworth feeding was shared in by Bond & Nohl for only
one-sixth, an equal share being held by Warshauer-McClure,
and a two-thirds interest by E. S. Leavenworth who had
11,000 sheep on feed. 64

Feeding large flocks of sheep during the winter was ex-
pensive, 65 and it required careful attention to matters of
purchasing corn, prairie hay, or alfalfa to feed them. Indeed,
buying feed could easily make the difference between profit
and loss on the winter gamble. 66 For these purchases the

61. Wentworth, op. eft., p. 439.

62. Bond protested that this rate was too high in view of the size of his feeding
operation. He asked Clay, Robinson & Co. for 7 per cent money and the following year
they did even better than that, offering feeding advances at 6 per cent. Letter Book No.
57, February 8, 1915, p. 13 ; Letter Book No. 59, p. 472.

63. Letter Book No. 57, February 17, 1915, p. 159.

64. Letter Book No. 55, October 21, 1914, p. 625 ; Letter Book No. 56, December 4.
1914, p. 214. Inviting C. J. Stauder in Fowler, Colorado, to feed with him, Bond outlined
the arrangements at the working level :

"We have feeding accounts with several parties. They put in their time at $50.00 per
month and work the same as the hired men, and we furnish the sheep and the money
to feed them with and give them 15 per cent of the profits, they stand no losses, in case
there is a loss made."Z,etter Book No. 55, October 16, 1914, p. 509.

66. Bond estimated that it took about $80,000 to pay for and feed 14,000 sheep. Ibid.,
October 14, 1914, p. 486.

66. At one time Leavenworth suggested buying another 80 acres at Wood River
which would be used to raise alfalfa, but nothing was ever done about it. Letter Book
No. 6, March 16, 1910.

FRANK BOND 291

feeder wrote checks as necessary against an account replen-
ished by Bond & Nohl, and these were charged to his feeding
account. 67 In this way it was possible for Bond to know quite
accurately what the feeder was or was not doing. An example
of this type of management control is encountered in 1914
when Bond had sheep on feed with W. C. Scott. Observing
the charges that were made to the feeding account, he noted
that Scott was lagging in his feed purchases. Bond launched
an incessant round of exhortations in an effort to get Scott
to buy his feed. It proved such a source of aggravation that
after Scott's account was closed in the spring Bond discon-
tinued feeding with him for good even though the account
netted over $5,000 and Bond himself was quite satisfied with
the showing. 68

This was also the last winter of feeding with Leaven-
worth. His health had been worsening for some time and
Bond was so concerned about the matter that he paid Rus-
sell's expenses and had him go visit Leavenworth on a pretext
to see just how serious it was. 69 Frank was now determined
to sell the Wood River ranch, for which he asked $36,450,
but it was still on the books at the close of 1915.

The year-end balances of sheep on feed are outlined in
Table 41, and the peak years of feeding are revealed to be
1908 and 1911. In 1908 Bond and Warshauer fed over $100,-
000 worth of sheep with Leavenworth and slightly more with
L. C. Butscher. The feeding partners in 1911, when the in-
vestment reached a peak of $282,615, are not disclosed, but
undoubtedly the major parts were handled by Leavenworth,
Russell, and Scott. Since the feeding accounts represent not
only the cost of sheep but also the feeding expense incurred,
no attempt is made to interpret these investment data in
terms of heads of sheep on hand.

On the mercantile side of Bond & Nohl, salaries accounted
for the largest expense of the business, averaging between
$10,000 and $14,000 a year. Based on the general salaries in

67. Letter Book No. 55, October 12, 1914, p. 466.

68. Letter Book No. 58, June 1, 1915, p. 353 ; ibid., June 11, 1915, p. 461 ; ibid.,
May 19. 1915, p. 186 ; ibid., June 1, 1915, p. 336.

69. Letter Book No. 56, January 21, 1915, p. 561.

70. Letter Book No. SO, October 6, 1913 ; Letter Book No. SI, March 11, 1914, p. 428.

292 NEW MEXICO HISTORICAL REVIEW

TABLE 41

BOND & NOHL SHEEP FEEDING ACCOUNTS
(even dollars)

End of Year Amount

1906 $ 4,319

1907 19,381

1908 222,608

1909 97,515

1910 102,803

1911 282,615

1912 87,313

1913 31,596

1914 125,549

1915 100,335

effect, this probably represented about ten or twelve em-
ployees. Salary levels are illustrated by that paid to Walter
Connell in 1914 who was employed as a manager in Albu-
querque at $75 per month, the estimate for his stenographic
help being $25 per month. 71 In the same year, however, Bond
indicated to J. H. McCarthy at Taos that $100 per month
was a fair salary for a bookkeeper.

Bond & Nohl kept a male stenographer in the office to take
care of the voluminous correspondence necessary to the
business as well as to serve Frank Bond. Clerks also were
necessary in the store, and care was taken to see that one or
two of them were natives. 72 In addition to a manager, book-
keeper, stenographer, and clerks, it was necessary to employ
general handymen, warehouse clerks, laborers, and an assist-
ant manager of sorts to handle collections, act as general fore-
man and trusted lieutenant. This latter position was occupied
for many years by Leandro Martinez who left in 1913, 73 but
he was replaced by John E. Davenport, whose father, Clar-
ence E. Davenport, had been associated with the Bonds in the
Forbes Wool Company in Trinidad and later with the G. W.
Bond & Bro. Mercantile Company in Encino. This position
was generally known as "outside man" and included the area
of responsibility associated with inspecting sheep, buying

71. Letter Book No. S3, July 17, 1914, p. 382.

72. Letter Book No. 57, March 10, 1915, p. 319.
78. Letter Book No. SO, December 19, 1913, p. 599.

FRANK BOND 293

from the growers, receiving sheep, contracting for wool, and
similar functions.

Employees were treated fairly, but by no means lavishly.
In 1909 the stenographer was paid $75 a month with the
promise of more if he would learn Spanish. Bookkeepers and
stenographers were usually recruited from out of town, but
the prospective employee paid his own moving expenses. 74
Hours were long for the store employees, the store usually
being open six days a week and closing at ten o'clock in the
evening. 75

The Bond secretaries undoubtedly earned their salaries
in full for Frank Bond was a prolific correspondent and like-
wise expected others to be. He maintained a strict policy of
answering letters promptly, and the following quotations
make his position on the matter perfectly clear :

When I write you about any matter requiring an answer
I expect you to sit down and answer that letter that same eve-
ning of the day you receive the letter, so that I will get an
answer promptly. It takes no longer to answer it ... than it
does a week or ten days from then. . . . Every letter we get is
answered in the very next mail and if we are going to continue
to do business together, I surely want you to adopt this as one
of your rules, as there is nothing more annoying to me than
to have a man fail to answer my letters promptly, in fact
rather than continually be annoyed this way, I would stop
doing business with him. 76

and again :

If [business letters] are not answered immediately, it shows
that the party receiving them is very sloppy in his methods of
doing business. If a man is in business and is too sick to answer
letters he should have one of his men answer them. If you had
no intention of answering my letters, I surely intended to get
in touch with somebody who would, even if I had to hire him.
There is nothing this side of heaven or hell that annoys me
more than to have a man fail to answer a letter in which I
have asked him for a little information that would take him
less than two minutes to write me. You say you have done the

74. Letter Book No. 6, August 31, 1909.

75. Interview with John F. McCarthy.

76. Letter Book No. 56, January 20, 1915, p. 540.

294 NEW MEXICO HISTORICAL REVIEW

best you could under the circumstances. I want to say to you
that if I should get a business letter from you, a letter asking
for information, no matter how sick I was somebody would
answer that letter in the next mail or that somebody would
be very sorry he had not attended to it. ... I certainly hope
that you will sit down and answer my letters the day you get
them provided they require an answer. ... I presume you
will regard this as a very mean letter, it is not however I as-
sure you I merely wish to impress on you that you have
annoyed me very much. Why add to my burdens? I have at
times tried to lighten yours, and you know that mine is not a
path of roses. I have a whole lot on my mind all the time.
Understand that I am always your friend and always will be
if you will allow me to be. 77

That Frank Bond practiced his own philosophy is clear.
Whenever he was absent on a trip, which was frequently,
Louis Nohl replied to all correspondence received. If it was a
matter upon which Nohl was not in a position to act, the
letter was answered anyway, advising the correspondent that
Bond was out of town and that his letter would be handed to
him upon his return. Office correspondence was in all cases
promptly attended to, and Nohl even worked on Christmas
Day, 1914, writing seven letters. Bond was equally energetic
and once, after a six-week absence in California, he had
caught up on all his mail the day after his return. 78

Selection of responsible personnel was made very care-
fully. In considering one candidate for employment, Frank
Bond asked A. H. Long:

What do you know about [him] ? How does he impress you? Is
he honest? Does he speak Spanish? Would you want him for
an outside man? Would you consider him so valuable that you
would be willing to give him an interest in the business in
order to get him? Does he drink? How old is he? Is he a
worker? Has he got any money of his own? Is he moral? Is he
married? Is he healthy? Of ordinary intelligence? Know some-
thing about stock? Experience in trading? Can we absolutely
trust him? Is he interested in making good? 79

77. Ibid., p. 542.

78. Ibid., December 25, 1914, p. 369; Letter Book No. 57, April 6, 1916, p. 5S7:
Letter Book No. 58, passim.

79. Letter Book No. 58, May 25, 1916, p. 287.

FRANK BOND 295

George Bond was a teetotaler himself and was opposed to
drinking by others. Consequently, Frank Bond always
checked out a prospect's drinking habits even though he
didn't feel as strongly about the matter. Frank did, however,
depend almost entirely on the results of his own inquiries as
he felt that in general letters of recommendation were cheap
with most men. On the other hand, his references were
entirely honest and candid. If the individual deserved a
good reference, he got one. 80 If not, the following example
illustrates :

He may have reformed, but we would not do business with
him again under any circumstances, nor would we care to wish
him on our worst enemy. Unless he has reformed, his business
is women, wine, and cards; on the side buys a few sheep and
cattle with some unfortunate's money. 81

Bond was ever interested in affording opportunities for
deserving men to enter the organization, and although the
managers' salaries were usually small in relation to those of
the other employees, he felt that the salaries were not sup-
posed to be of any great importance, expecting them to make
their money out of the profits of the business. 82 Quite beyond
the obvious advantage of acquiring an interest in a business,
the managers were permitted to maintain large personal ac-
counts with the company completely interest-free. 83 Nohl's
account, for instance, started at a modest $1,800 and grew
steadily so that by the end of 1915 it had swelled to more than
$30,000. 84

At the suggestion of George Bond in 1914, the matter of
bonding the company employees was introduced for the first
time, and a decision was made to bond the bookkeepers of all
the stores for $25,000 each. 85 This practice was adopted, but
the bookkeeper in Taos objected to being bonded. The re-
action was swift. Frank Bond wrote McCarthy :

80. Letter Book No. 55, October 17, 1914, p. 525.

81. Letter Book No. 59, July 30, 1915, p. 269.

82. Letter Book No. 58, June 14, 1915, p. 529.

83. Letter Book No. 50, October 16, 1913, p. 83.

84. Records, loc. cit.

85. Letter Book No. 53, August 21, 1914, p. 685.

296 NEW MEXICO HISTORICAL REVIEW

If he doesn't want to give a bond just simply fire him and
tell him that I said so, and I want you to do it right quick. An
honest man should not hesitate to be under bond, seeing that
we are paying for the bond, and the fact that he doesn't seem
to want to give a bond, does not look good to me. 86

In addition to the expenses just discussed, there appeared
other important expense items in 1911 and 1912 when $15,000
and $20,000 were charged off to cover losses of the Espanola
Milling and Elevator Company. 87 These write-offs account
for the sharp drop in net profits for those years which may be
observed in Table 42, and a poor year for sheep and wool is
largely responsible for the depressed profit in 1913.

As might be expected in a business of this type, receiv-
ables were high. In contrast to the stores where sheep and
wool were combined with the mercantile business, Bond &
Nohl held the heaviest investment in personal accounts, with
bills receivable considerably lower. These are shown in Table
43. Personal accounts were conservatively valued for state-
ment presentation at 85 or 90 per cent of good value, although
after 1909 it was the general practice to deduct only those
accounts actually expected to be uncollectible. While these
were always considerably below 10 per cent, the actual loss
experience was so small as to make even these valuations
highly conservative.

TABLE 43

BOND & NOHL MAJOR RECEIVABLES
(dollars in thousands)

Year Bills Receivable Personal

Accounts (Gross)

1906 $ 3.3 $40.4

1907 29.0 42.2

1908 15.4 51.0

1909 20.7 36.9

1910 19.1 45.4

1911 16.3 56.1

1912 13.4 62.1

1913 13.2 52.7

1914 31.9 52.1

1915 9.8 56.9

86. Letter Book No. 55, September 7, 1914. p. 142.

87. Infra, chap. xi.

FRANK BOND

297

M

i
g

6 S

. fc a

W I-H tQ

W X

PQ * .S

<J ,_3 w

H W S3

8
Q

O

m

(C^g

i

.2g

H &

s

2^

OOCOCvlOOCOOOOOCOrH

OOlOrJtt-OOOOt-THC-
r-l<MrHTHrHeOTfC<leO(N
C/D

T-H CO CO CO

OC-OOOOTHNCO^IO
OO<POrHr-(THTHi-lT-l

298 NEW MEXICO HISTORICAL REVIEW

Through 1913 the Real Estate investment of Bond & Nohl
was slightly over $14,000. However, on May 25, 1914, the
entire store and contents burned to the ground. Always great
believers in insurance, Bond formerly had carried only 75 per
cent coverage, but since the insurance company had allowed
him to carry full insurance, this had been done. 88 As a result,
the fire loss to the business was very small as illustrated by
Table 44.

TABLE 44

BOND & NOHL FIRE, MAY 25, 1914

Item Value at Time Claim Loss

of Fire Paid*

Stock $40,000 $38,000 $2,000

Building 10,000 10,000

Furniture & Fixtures 4,600 3,500 1,000

Total $54,500 $51,500 $3,000

a. By the Liverpool & London & Globe Insurance Company.

Bond immediately made plans for reconstruction, antici-
pating a new building with steam heat, electric lights, water,
and inside toilets. The new store was to be truly worthy of
the competition springing up in Espanola, for there were at
least six new ones in progress at that time. The new building
contract was let to F. W. Schnauf er, and by the latter part of
August construction was actually under way ; the dry goods
and shoe departments moved into the new building on No-
vember 1, 1914. This new edifice on the Espanola scene was
of concrete and measured 125 feet wide by 95 feet long. There
were three large rooms, one behind the other; the middle
room was 35 feet deep and 125 feet wide and the other two
were about 25 feet deep and of the same width. Although the
building had a fifteen-foot ceiling, the front and rear rooms
had fourteen-foot ceilings. In the store section there were
three dark oak counters measuring 28 inches wide and 37^
feet long, covered with linoleum. Frank Bond ordered a
knocked-down dressing room for the furnishings department,
but he had some difficulty with it upon arrival due to the fact
that it was designed for corner installation and there was no
corner for it. There was an engine and boiler house complete

88. Letter Book No. 53, June 28, 1914, p. 99 ; ibid., June 29, 1914, p. 170.

FRANK BOND 299

with a five kilowatt, 115-volt, direct current Fairbanks-Morse
dynamo for operating the new electric lights, and a boiler to
operate the steam radiators in the building. A coal house was
provided to store the coal which was bought by the carload
and used by the carload too for that matter. In the winter
of 1914-1915 a forty-ton car of coal lasted less than two
months. 89

A number of other assets appeared briefly on the books of
Bond & Nohl from time to time, reflecting the varied activi-
ties of the home store. Frequently, of course, these repre-
sented personal investments of Frank Bond rather than of
the mercantile store, it frequently being the vehicle for carry-
ing out his own business transactions. In 1907, for instance,
almost $11,000 was shown as a receivable from Fred War-
shauer. Commencing in 1908 and continuing through 1913 a
small account was carried for the Espanola Bridge. No ex-
planation of this $1,000 item has been found. Similarly,
somewhat less than $1,000 was invested in 1907 in the camp
house and scale at Servilleta and maintained continuously
throughout the period. In addition, about $3,500 was invested
in a sheep dipping plant in Espanola in 1911, along with the
necessary corrals. There was a small school warrant account,
and a windmill. 90

Some of these extraneous items on the books are minor in
amount and transitory in nature, and the usage of the ac-
counts appears to have varied considerably from year to year.

All the sheep trading and feeding in addition to the mer-
cantile business would, of course, have severely taxed the
company had not George and Frank Bond provided consid-
erable financial support. A considerable part of this financial
strength was derived from the undivided profits. With a
minor exception in 1914, 91 the net profits were returned to
surplus every year. 92 Together with the sums contributed by

89. Letter Book No. S3, June 15, 1914 ; Letter Book No. 55, August 28, 1914, p. B3 ;
ibid., November 1, 1914, p. 643 ; ibid., p. 680 ; Letter Book No. 56, November 14, 1914,
p. 54 ; ibid., December 2, 1914, p. 188 ; ibid., February 6, 1915, p. 698 ; Letter Book No. 58,
June 7, 1915, p. 454 ; ibid., June 27, 1915, p. 630 ; Letter Book No. 59, September 1, 1915,
p. 576 ; ibid., September 4, 1915, p. 622.

90. Records, loc. eit.

91. There was a withdrawal of $4,700 in 1914.

92. Cf ., Tables 42 and 45.

300 NEW MEXICO HISTORICAL REVIEW

the Bonds separately and apart from the capital stock they
provide an explanation of how such heavy investments could
be carried by a general mercantile store without seriously
endangering its financial position. These totals are shown in
Table 45.

Although Louis Nohl was manager of the Espanola store
and was directly responsible for making it show a profit much
in the same manner as were the other store managers, he was
in close proximity to Frank Bond's strong influence and no
doubt this business was operated more in consonance with the
Bond philosophy than any other.

Several merchandising points followed by Bond & Nohl
are therefore noteworthy, and it is of interest to discover that
various means were utilized to deliver items to customers in
the commerce of the day. There is no indication that any local
delivery of items was carried on within the Espanola area,
but some pains were taken to get commodities to out-of-town

TABLE 45

BOND & NOHL CAPITAL
(dollars in thousands)

Year Capital Undivided Due G. W. or Total

Stock Profits Frank Bond

1906 $50.0 $ 18.5 $ 39.3 $107.8

1907 50.0 34.6 65.0 149.6

1908 50.0 47.3 254.8 352.1

1909 50.0 76.7 150.4 277.1

1910 50.0 97.1 137.0 284.1

1911 50.0 100.5 318.7 469.2

1912 50.0 108.7 111.5 270.2

1913 50.0 117.3 31.0 198.3

1914 50.0 125.6 36.2 211.8

1915 50.0 137.4 26.0 213.4

customers. At least one case is on record where a lady in
Buckman received her regular supply of butter by the simple
expedient of having the train conductor deliver it to her.
Following a more modern merchandising trend, an order was
placed in May, 1915, on the Hinkle-Leadstone Company in
Chicago for 500 premium catalogues and a supply of coupons

FRANK BOND 301

and certificates, both in English and in Spanish. The inscrip-
tion on the back of the catalogue is the only instance of ad-
vertising by Bond & Nohl that has been observed. 93 The A.
MacArthur Company in Wagon Mound is known to have ad-
vertised in the local newspaper, El Combate, but this was a
Spanish language advertisement. Since Bond & Nohl or-
dered their catalogues furnished in both languages, the back
was probably printed in Spanish on those copies also. The
wording provides us with an excellent description of the Bond
& Nohl business, but with no mention of sheep and wool. It is
quoted below essentially in the form in which it was ordered :

BOND AND NOHL CO.

Dry Goods, Wedding Outfits, Hosiery, Shoes, Men's Furnishings

Agricultural Implements and Wagons

Buggies.

Also a Full Line of the Best Groceries and Flour

Our Specialties

Bain Wagons, McCormick & Deering Mowers and Rakes
Lion Special Hats, Red Goose School Shoes

Espanola, N. M.

With the usual note of caution, an inquiry was also dis-
patched to R. G. Dun and Company for information about
the Hinkle-Leadstone Company in order to be sure the pre-
mium plan was legitimate. Whether or not the premium plan
was ever put into effect and if so, with what effect, is not
disclosed.

The Bond & Nohl store was not only an important sub-
sistence center but also a clearing house for diverse, unre-
lated community functions. The Espanola post office was
located at the store, and Frank Bond was the postmaster. 94
This fact alone would have made the Bond & Nohl premises
a focus of community interest, but it is doubtful that Frank
or George Bond permitted a great deal of social intercourse
of the proverbial cracker-barrel variety in the store. HOW-
OS. Letter Book No. 55. September 29, 1914, p. 323 ; Letter Book No. 58, May 28,
1915, p. 811.

94. Frank Bond was appointed postmaster at Espanola on August 18, 1887. Cer-
tificate of appointment, September 28, 1887, Bond Papers, lot. eit.

302 NEW MEXICO HISTORICAL REVIEW

ever, a number of personal and civic functions were certainly
performed for their customers and for the community.
George Bond, Frank Bond, and A. MacArthur all spoke fluent
French as well as Spanish, and they tried to find stenogra-
phers who understood both English and Spanish. 95 As a result
they were called upon to act as interpreters and to write let-
ters in English for those who spoke only Spanish. 96 For those
who didn't know how to handle claims with insurance com-
panies they drew drafts through their own accounts; they
recruited sheepherders, made claims for pensions, helped
renters apply for grazing permits, and even found a house
for a Taos professor to rent in Espanola. 97 There being no
newspaper in Espanola, public notices were posted at the
store, and on at least one occasion when a sheep feeder in
Colorado needed some men for a month's employment, Bond
recruited them through such notices, arranged for their trans-
portation, collected the fare from the feeder, and charged
nothing for the service. 98 Another time he even arranged to
advance twenty-five dollars a month to a Wyoming man's
estranged wife who lived in Espanola. 99

In June, 1914, two thugs attacked Earl Cochran, a night
watchman at the store, beat him over the head with a six-
shooter, and left him for dead. They were caught near Dixon,
New Mexico, and returned to the state penitentiary at Santa
Fe. Bond retained the Santa Fe law firm of Renehan and
Wright to prosecute the outlaws ; and although he felt it was
important to see that justice was done, Bond's inherent aver-
sion to legal unpleasantness prompted him to arrange for his
deposition to be submitted to the court rather than answer a
subpoena to testify in person. 100 At about the same time
Bond made a complaint about a gambling table that was

96. Interview with Stuart MacArthur, loe. eft.; Letter Book No. 57, March 81, 1916,
p. 492. No doubt other managers also spoke Spanish.

96. Letter Book No. 59, July 20, 1915, p. 183.

97. Letter Book No. 57, April 12, 1915, p. 694 ; Letter Book No. 58, May 11, 1915,
P. 118 ; ibid.. May 19, 1915, p. 181 ; ibid., June 2, 1916, p. 876 ; Letter Book No. 59,
August 8, 1915, p. 312.

8. Letter Book No. 58. April 30, 1915, p. 11 ; ibid., May 6, 1915, p. 61 ; ibid.. May 20,
1915, p. 205.

99. Letter Book No. 59, August 23, 1915, p. 464.

100. Letter Book No. 5S, June 22, 1914, p. 97; ibid., June 24, 1914, p. Ill; ibid.,
July 1, 1914, p. 208 ; Letter Book No. 58, June 2. 1916, p. 863.

FRANK BOND 303

being operated in a local saloon, taking care not to become
implicated himself. 101

Bond & Nohl's activities, then, covered the broad front of
merchandising, commodity speculation, hides, pelts, wool,
sheep, feeder lambs, feed lot operation, and community serv-
ice. Frank Bond's propinquity, of course, permitted him to
influence the company's activities in many ways and also to
utilize it for the administration of his projects or for a me-
dium of financial support. When this was done, however, it
redounded to Frank Bond's financial detriment because any
profits realized from activities carried by Bond & Nohl were
shared with the other stockholders whereas those which were
on his personal books were not. There is no evidence whatso-
ever that he at any time tried to avoid this consequence.

In many ways Bond & Nohl was a continuation of the
original G. W. Bond & Bro. partnership, Louis Nohl assuming
much of the routine management responsibility and thus
freeing Bond to devote more of his time to sheep renting as
well as to the financial and organizational problems asso-
ciated with his expanding sphere of interest which, in addi-
tion to sheep and wool, had begun to include investments,
land management, and even lumbering.

7. An Adventure in Lumbering

Born in 1864, C. L. Pollard came to Antonito, Colorado,
in 1887 at the age of twenty-three as a telegraph operator
for the Denver and Rio Grande Railroad, later moving suc-
cessively to Del Norte, Cumbres, Embudo, and Chama. In
1902 he settled in Espanola, New Mexico, and with two other
partners founded the firm of Biggs, Pollard, and Graves. 1
The partnership was short-lived, and the following year,
1903, the firm became the C. L. Pollard Company, general
store and dealers in lumber, building material, and fruit
boxes. 2

The exact date that Frank Bond became associated with
Pollard cannot be established, but it undoubtedly occurred in

101. Letter Book No. 57. February 25, 1915, p. 212.

1. Interview with Rowland C. Pollard, Albuquerque, 1956.

2. Interview with W. P. Cook, Espanola, June 1, 1967.

304 NEW MEXICO HISTORICAL REVIEW

January or February of 1903, coincidental with the dropping
out of Biggs and Graves. In addition to dealing in merchan-
dise and lumber, Pollard was active in the wool business, and
it was through these wool dealings that the Bond-Pollard
association began a stormy relationship that eventually took
Frank Bond into lumbering operations and court litigation
that lasted until July 27, 1925. 3 Bond described Pollard as "a
very peculiar man, rather an unknown quantity, not well
balanced, extremely bull-headed. He would prefer to have his
own way and lose money rather than let the other fellow have
his way, and by so doing make some money." 4

Frank Bond joined Pollard under unusual circumstances.
He usually went into business with men who had earned his
respect through a demonstration of the way in which they
could handle business ; in this case the opposite circumstance
prevailed. Pollard had been actually doing his wool business
at a loss, and being an aggressive individual willing to operate
without a profit, he was able to force the Bonds into sacri-
ficing their profits. 5 Bond probably recognized a worthy op-
ponent when he saw one and reasoned that it would be better
to have him on the same side of the fence. However, the entire
relationship with Pollard was maintained with the highest
degree of secrecy. Bond's interest was not disclosed to Dun or
Bradstreet, care was taken that other wool men did not know
that Bond was working with Pollard, 6 and when it became
necessary to have a new stock certificate book printed he even
went so far as to have the printing handled through the First
National Bank in Santa Fe so that the Bond connection might
not be revealed. 7

The capital stock of the company was $38,000, but only
32,000 shares were issued, and there is evidence to indicate
that the original holdings were 4,000 shares for C. L. Pollard
and 28,000 shares for G. W. Bond & Bro., Espanola. It also
appears that Pollard's interest was obtained by giving a note

8. Capital Stock Tax Reports, Bond Papers, loc. cit.
4. Letter Book No. 6, May 5, 1905.
6. Ibid.

6. "This is confidential, as if our wool men knew that we were buying Pollard's
wool, it would hurt us both with the trade." Ibid., June 7, 1908.

7. Ibid.. February 20, 1909.

FRANK BOND 305

for $5,000 to the First National Bank in Santa Fe which was
endorsed by Bond. 8

The year 1903 was a busy one, events affecting and af-
fected by Pollard occurring rapidly. On February 7, 1903,
Frank Bond and his wife, May Anna, bought the Santo Tomas
Apostol del Rio de las Trampas Grant. This property, com-
monly referred to as the Trampas Grant, had been granted
by Spain to Juan D. Arguello and confirmed by Congress on
June 21, I860. 9 The grant comprised 27,481 acres as officially
surveyed by the Surveyor General of the United States, 10
and was patented January 26, 1903. The grant included about
seven small villages and it was partly in Taos County and
partly in Rio Arriba County, located about twelve miles east
of the Denver and Rio Grande Railroad siding at Lajoya,
southeast of Embudo Station, and north of Santa Fe. 11 Con-
tiguous grant lands were the Santa Barbara on the east and
the Las Truchas on the south. 12

The actual investment by Frank Bond in this property
was $17,857.83, and later additions to the investment resulted
in accumulated costs as shown in Table 46.

TABLE 46
TRAMPAS GRANT INVESTMENT

Year Amount

1903 $17,857.83

1904 24,803.06

1905 24,098.88

1906 24,207.66

1907 14,811.14

1912 106.99

1913 20,000.00

a Expense

The ink was hardly dry on his purchase when Bond was
offered a profit of $10,000 if he would sell the grant. He re-
fused, but commented : "I never had anything I wouldn't sell,

8. Ibid., February 27, 1903.

9. Records, loc. cit.

10. Charles F. Coan, however, reports the acreage of this grant as 29,030 acres
14,965 acres in Rio Arriba County and 14,065 in Taos County. Coan, op. cit., pp. 474-475.

11. Records, loc. cit.

12. U. S., Department of the Interior, G.L.O., Map of Territory of New Mexico,
1903.

306 NEW MEXICO HISTORICAL REVIEW

so they may induce me to part with it." 13 There is little doubt
but that he lived to regret keeping the grant.

During this same month of what must have been a frantic
February, Bond also expressed an interest in buying the
Santa Barbara Grant which lay just to the east of the Tram-
pas. Nothing ever came of this thought, but two months later
he was still thinking about it. 14

In March, Frank Bond put the Trampas Grant on the
market, however. While he opined that it was worth more
than $1.50 per acre, he felt that the best trade could be made
by selling it to the United States for scrip, which was selling
for $5.50 in Colorado. 15 He approached the U. S. Land Com-
missioner in Santa Fe and also wrote to the Land Office in
Washington on the matter, but nothing developed. 16

Before the spring was out, there had been formed a new
and short-lived firm which was organized for a lumbering
operation and called the Bond and Jones Company. Whether
the Bond and Jones Company ever shipped any lumber is
doubtful, and by August Bond was sorry he had tried it. 17 It
was never heard from again.

During this time the C. L. Pollard Company invested
$5,000 in the Truchas Lumber Company which operated a
lumber mill about 5 miles north of Truchas, 18 and the com-
pany began to show signs of being in trouble. There was a
merchandise investment of less than $15,000 and $10,000 of
it had not been paid for, with $3,300 of the debt being to
G. W. Bond & Bro., Espanola. There was a bank overdraft of
$218.67, and in addition to the $5,000 capital investment in
the Truchas Lumber Company there were receivables on the
Pollard books from Truchas amounting to almost $14,000.
Bond promptly arranged with R. J. Palen for the Santa Fe

13. Letter Book No. 6, February 20, 1903.

14. Ibid., February 23, 1903 ; ibid., April 17, 1903.

15. Ibid., March 25, 1903.

16. Ibid., March 5, 1903 ; ibid., April 17, 1903.

17. Ibid., June 8, 1903 ; ibid., n.d., p. 51.

18. Interview with R. C. Pollard.

The town of Truchas was about sixteen miles east of Espanola on the Sendra del
Rosario Grant. The mill itself, however, seems to have actually been on the Las Truchas
Grant just to the north. U.S., Department of the Interior, G.L.O., Map of Territory of
New Mexico, 1903.

FRANK BOND 307

bank to advance Pollard $5,000 in order to pay some of the
accounts payable, 19 suggesting that the other creditors be
paid first and then G. W. Bond & Bro. when they were in
better shape. Bond advised that they try to operate on as
nearly a cash basis as possible, discounting every invoice,
and asked Pollard to stay up at the mill. He pointed out that
the Truchas Lumber Company receivables had to be reduced
or he would be forced to move in and take it over himself,
even at the risk of exposing their interest to public view. 20
Shortly thereafter, Brady, who with B. F. Bookhamer was a
partner in the mill, decided to sell his interest in the Truchas
Lumber Company for $3,500, and Pollard bought it by pre-
vailing on Frank Bond to endorse his personal note for $2,000
in order to do it. 21

Financial priming of the lumber business now began in
earnest. In December the $5,000 Pollard note became due and
could not be paid ; in addition the Truchas Lumber Company
needed $5,000, so Bond underwrote the necessary $10,000
with the bank in Santa Fe. 22 In February, 1904, Pollard had
again overdrawn his account, and Bond asked the bank to
keep him advised of Pollard's activities, at the same time ar-
ranging for the overdraft to be covered with a note. Less
than two weeks later, Bond again had to get the Truchas com-
pany out of trouble by guaranteeing a $14,000 advance by the
bank. In early March $2,500 more went the same way and in
addition Bond had to endorse a $1,000 note of the Truchas
Lumber Company held by B. F. Bookhamer, the other re-
maining investor in the company after Brady left. In less
than a week Pollard had again overdrawn his accounts, and
Bond had to endorse a $6,500 note for the Truchas Lumber
Company and a $2,500 note for the C. L. Pollard Company to
cover the overdrafts. This drew unmistakable fire from Bond,
but a week later he had to give the bank $6,700 more so that
Pollard could pay his bills. 23

19. Letter Book No. 6, October 5, 1903.

20. Ibid., n.d., p. 61 ; ibid., October 19, 1903.

21. Ibid., November 3, 1903 ; ibid., November 4, 1903.

22. Ibid., December 9, 1903.

23. Ibid., February 2, 1904; ibid., February 13, 1904; ibid., March 8, 1904; ibid.,
March 9, 1904 ; ibid., March 12, 1904 ; ibid., March 15, 1904.

308 NEW MEXICO HISTORICAL REVIEW

In June $10,000 in notes of the Pollard Company and the
Truchas Company came due, couldn't be paid, and Bond was
forced to get them extended ; in August he had to extend notes
in the amount of $23,000 which Pollard couldn't meet. 24

By this time the Bond investment in the Truchas Lumber
Company had climbed to $60,000, and Frank Bond was more
than just a little annoyed, for Pollard had gone in with two
men named Brooks and Thompson in a venture to make rail-
road ties probably without Bond's concurrence for he did
not approve of Thompson at all. 25

With tongue in cheek, Bond requested Pollard to make up
a statement and to make it appear as bad as possible so that
it wouldn't be as bad as it looked, 26 and then in an effort to
prevent further losses due to the loose credit policy, Bond had
Pollard send a letter to each of his customers asking them to
pay their accounts.

Despite the difficulty involved in keeping the Pollard and
Truchas businesses on a sound financial footing, the profit
showing for 1904 was fairly satisfactory, 27 and in May of the
following year an agreement was signed which provided that
so long as the Bonds controlled the C. L. Pollard Company
and so long as C. L. Pollard was general manager and con-
tinued to hold 4,000 shares of stock, these 4,000 shares would
be entitled to receive one-third of the net profits although
they only represented one-eighth of the outstanding shares. 28
Although profit-sharing was a common practice in the Bond
system, this was a peculiar arrangement. The impatient tenor
of Frank Bond's correspondence with Pollard bearing over-
tones of discord, only serves to deepen the mystery of this
generous contract.

In view of a new law requiring that the names of the offi-
cers and directors be filed with the Secretary of State after
each annual meeting, and on account of their desire to main-
tain the esoteric nature of their association with Pollard, a

24. Ibid., June 8, 1904 ; ibid., August 15, 1904 ; ibid.. August 16, 1904 ; ibid., August
17, 1904.

25. Ibid., August 15, 1904 ; ibid., August 16, 1904.

26. Ibid., August 15, 1904.

27. However, actual figures are not available.

28. Letter Book No. 6, May 5, 1905.

FRANK BOND 309

problem arose because three officers were necessary and two
of the three stockholders were Bonds. Obviously a report
under these circumstances would divulge the combination.
So perhaps because of this or perhaps through the normal
progress of the business, F. R. Frankenburger, who had been
in charge of the lumber mill commissary, 29 was brought into
the company holding 2,000 shares of stock. He undoubtedly
already knew of the Bond's interest in the business. One ad-
ditional stockholder was necessary ; and since R. J. Palen of
the First National Bank in Santa Fe had for a long time been
a confidant of Frank Bond and knew all about the arrange-
ment, he was issued one share of stock and made vice-presi-
dent. C. L. Pollard was president, and Frankenburger was
secretary-treasurer. 30 In this way the Bond stockholdings
were completely concealed.

The absence of correspondence with the Pollard and
Truchas companies from May, 1905, to September, 1907, is
probably more indicative of records having been lost than it
is of the sudden cessation of problems. That credit policies
were still worrisome is indicated by Frank Bond's caution to
Pollard at that time to beware of Miss Clara True who owed
$1,500 to Pollard and his advice to secure it with a mortgage
on the Daganett Ranch. However, Bond at the same time
indicated that the mill was no longer operating at a loss. 31

On June 20, 1907, the Trampas Grant was sold to the Las
Trampas Lumber Company, a corporation organized on June
11, 1907, for the purpose of buying the grant. 32 The selling
price is unknown, as are the original stockholders of the
company, but a mill was set up at Trampas, New Mexico, for
the production of railroad ties, poles, piling, and lumber. 33
Certain covenants of reservation in the title, however, led to
litigation which some years later brought the Trampas Grant
back to the Bond bailiwick.

With the Trampas Grant out of the way, the C. L. Pollard
Company continued its lumber and merchandise business

29. Interview with J. E. Davenport.

30. Letter Book No. 6, May 5, 1905.

31. Ibid., September 17, 1907.

32. Tax Return, Bond Papers, loc. cit.

33. Records, loc. cit.

310 NEW MEXICO HISTORICAL REVIEW

unencumbered, but by March of the following year, 1908,
difficulties with C. L. Pollard reached their peak, resulting
in one of Frank Bond's explosions which, though rare, were
usually as violent as they were justified. Pollard had become
indebted to the company fairly heavily on his drawing ac-
count. He also owned the Herrera Building which, as a result
of a conversation with Frank Bond, he applied on his note.
Bond had suggested that he might do this. However, Pollard
must have sold it to the company for an exorbitant price
for Bond accused him of either not knowing right from wrong
or of intentionally trying to take an undue advantage. He
pointed out that Pollard had bought the building originally
with company money without consulting the Bonds, and hav-
ing done this in a period of deficit had therefore effectively
used capital funds to buy it for himself. In suggesting that
Pollard apply the building on his account or on his note,
nothing was said about the price, but Frank Bond supposed
that "a man of your intelligence and fair-mindedness would
certainly do the right thing which was to turn it over at cost
less whatever rent has been collected on it." 34 He said that
they certainly did not want the building but did want the
cash back that Pollard took out of the business to buy it with
and that he would accept the building on no other terms.
Otherwise, Pollard could keep the building and pay his debts
plus interest on the money. "Furthermore," he wrote, "as
you are having to play at high-handed finance we must ask
you to at once protect us on the note you owe us for $7,000. " 35
He asked Pollard to hypothecate enough of his insurance poli-
cies to do this and then demanded that he confine his living
expenses to his salary and discontinue drawing money out,
asserting that if the Bonds did that the company would be
bankrupt. Bond directed Pollard to discontinue all logging
for good and to confine himself exclusively to the mercantile
business. He concluded his screed by saying: "We will have
no friction in business, things must run smoothly, and our
policy must be the one which will govern the business from
now on." 36

34. Letter Book No. 6, March 1, 1908.

35. Ibid.
86. Ibid.

FRANK BOND 311

Proving that he meant business, Frank Bond notified R.
J. Palen to give Pollard no more credit, and shortly after-
wards he refused to guarantee a $5,000 note. 37 Amidst this,
Bond in writing to E. H. Leavenworth in Wood River, Ne-
braska, said that the G. W. Bond & Bro. Company had suf-
fered a severe loss, a loss too big to advertise, and that he had
had a severe jolt to his faith in human nature, adding that
although he thought people were honest, he was sometimes
wrong. 38

Two months later Bond endorsed a $5,000 note for Pollard.

In January, 1909, Frank Bond found that the credit poli-
cies still left something to be desired, and he found it neces-
sary to make an independent inquiry into a matter concerning
a customer who had received $1,200 worth of lumber on
credit. 39 On March 1, without Bond's concurrence, a large
shipment of lumber was sent to McPhee and McGinnity, Den-
ver lumber dealers. This sale was made on credit, the account
not to be paid until July 1 at which time they could either take
another sixty days or take a 2 per cent discount. This ar-
rangement prevented the payment of notes due to the Santa
Fe bank, and in addition Pollard owed the Bonds more than
$5,000. 40

Frank Bond was now finally at the end of his patience.

Therefore, on March 1, 1909, Pollard received $1,000 for
his share in the business and forthwith left the company. 41
Milo Hill was brought into the company as secretary and
treasurer, and Frankenburger was made president and gen-
eral manager. In addition, Louis F. Nohl was given $2,000
worth of stock so he could work with Frankenburger. It
heretofore had not been possible for Nohl to have anything
to do with the company because Nohl and Pollard were so
unfriendly they couldn't even talk business with each other. 42

Sometime between March 1, 1909, and the end of 1910 the
C. L. Pollard Company was re-christened. It was from then

37. Ibid., March 2, 1908 ; ibid., March 21, 1908.

38. Ibid., March 2, 1908.

39. Ibid., January 13, 1909.

40. Ibid., March 25, 1909 ; ibid., March 1, 1909 ; ibid., January 13, 1909.

41. Ibid., March 24, 1909.

42. Ibid., January 15, 1909 ; ibid., February 23, 1909.

312 NEW MEXICO HISTORICAL REVIEW

on called the Espanola Mercantile Company, but any connec-
tion between it and the Bonds or Bond & Nohl was still a
guarded secret. 43 In fact, in Frank Bond's accounts it was
always referred to as "Investment No. 5" without any fur-
ther identification. Similarly, the statements of the Espanola
Mercantile Company which were submitted to Bond were
typed on blank sheets of paper with any identification of the
company being carefully omitted. This presumably prevented
all the office help and others who might see the statements
from knowing that a connection existed between Bond & Nohl
and the Espanola Mercantile Company, ostensibly competi-
tors. 44 However, whenever Bond & Nohl received an order
they couldn't fill, it was turned over to the Espanola Mercan-
tile Company, so there must have been some communication
between the two stores. 45

The company, with Pollard out, engaged in no further
lumbering work, and at the end of 1915 it was still operating
under the control of Frank Bond. The ultimate disposition of
its investment in the Truchas Lumber Company is unknown,
but the accounts at the end of October 1912, give no indica-
tion of such an investment so the interest in this company
was probably disposed of during the reorganization. Bond
was undoubtedly weary of lumber and probably let it go
without any sense of loss whatsoever.

Sales of the C. L. Pollard Company and the Espanola Mer-
cantile Company distinctly reflect the change in organization.
From Table 47 it can be seen that the credit policy was imme-
diately tightened so that credit sales dropped sharply after
1909 and thenceforth always remained less than the cash
sales for the same period.

The Espanola Mercantile Company occupied a one-story,
metal-roofed, iron-clad frame and adobe building in Espanola,
probably of very ordinary aspect. This was not, however, the
only business property owned by the firm. The company also
owned a one-story adobe building measuring thirty-two feet

43. Ibid., September 6, 1910.

44. The statements are completely unidentified, but proof that they are actually
Espanola Mercantile Co. statements has been established by tracing certain account
balances to identifiable amounts from other sources.

45. Letter Book No. 50, October 20, 1913, p. 184.

FRANK BOND 313

TABLE 47

ESPANOLA MERCANTILE (C. L. POLLARD) COMPANY SALES
(dollars in thousands)

Year Cash Sales Credit Sales Total

1904 $29.6 $34.3 $63.9

1905 40.2 55.4 95.6

1906 35.9 49.9 85.8

1907 36.5 49.1 85.6

1908 30.1 33.1 63.2

1909 33.3 30.1 63.4

1910 36.7 21.1 57.8

1911 33.6 28.4 62.0

1912 31.8 31.4 63.2

1913 34.5 24.6 59.1

1914 33.1 27.6 60.7

1915 37.0 23.3 60.3

wide and eighty-two feet long, located about 100 feet west of
the railroad tracks. This building was, curiously enough, oc-
cupied by a saloon probably the last thing the Espanola
citizenry would have connected with Frank Bond. 46

At the end of 1912 the profit and loss account balance was
$14,146 and by the end of 1915 it stood at $23,566, repre-
senting an average yearly profit of about $3,140 per year, and
there may have been some distributions of profit during that
time. 47

Frank Bond probably drew a sigh of relief and imagined
that he was out of the logging and timber business. His first
love was sheep, wool, and merchandise ; certainly he would
never have done more than have a few logs chopped for his
fireplace. But it was not to be. The interregnum lasted only
four years, and then Frank Bond found himself back at the
head of a sizable timber project that lasted for twelve more
years.

When the Trampas Grant was sold to the Las Trampas
Lumber Company in 1907, Bond had reserved 2,000 acres in
addition to 650 acres that were already allotted to certain
settlements on the grant. 48 A decision of the Supreme Court

46. Letter Book No. 56, January 4, 1915, p. 433.

47. Records, loc. cit.

48. Letter Book No. 6, June 26, 1912.

314 NEW MEXICO HISTORICAL REVIEW

raised questions concerning the title which Bond had passed
to the Las Trampas Lumber Company, and a number of the
settlers on the grant filed claims for parts of the grant in
excess of the 650 acres allotted to them. In turn, the Las
Trampas Lumber Company instituted a suit against the for-
mer owner, Frank Bond. Bond, of course, had a pronounced
distaste for any kind of litigation, 40 and on May 1, 1913, an
agreement was reached with the Las Trampas Lumber Com-
pany. 50 By the terms of this agreement, Bond was to buy 750
shares, or one-half of the issued capital stock of the Las
Trampas Lumber Company for $57,648.75, representing a
par value of $75,000.00. Bond was further bound to try and
sell the Trampas Grant and the timber ; in its turn the com-
pany was to release Bond from the covenants of seizure,
warranty, quiet and peaceable possession, and all other cove-
nants in the warranty deed, and also to dismiss the suit
against him. 51 This was accomplished, and Frank Bond found
himself again in the timber business as president of the Las
Trampas Lumber Company, Albuquerque.

Bond promptly went to work in an effort to dispose of the
grant and made available to prospective purchasers the re-
sults of lumber surveys which had been made on the property.
The Las Trampas Lumber Company had employed a timber
estimator and cruiser named W. A. Ross to survey the tract,
and again in 1912, before the litigation began, they had em-
ployed the firm of Brayton and Lawbaugh of Chicago, Illi-
nois, to make a cruise and estimate the tract and show the
amount of timber on each forty-acres subdivision of the
property. The work was done, and exhaustive and detailed
maps were prepared covering the whole property and the
timber on each forty acres. The maps and plats in addition
to showing the amount of timber also showed the character
of the logging ground, the contour of the land, the canyons,
streams, and elevations at different points. The work was

49. Bond wrote: "I don't like law-suits, much prefer a settlement." Ibid.

60. The stockholders of the company were James B. Herndon, president, O. N.
Marron, C. L. Hill, J. J. Hill, G. L. Hill, Ike Graham, and Warren Graham. Agreement
dated May 1, 1913. Bond Papers, loc. cit.

51. Ibid.

FRANK BOND 315

exhaustively and thoroughly done. Accompanying the plats
and maps was a report of their conclusions.

The sale price of the grant set by Frank Bond was
$160,000, to be paid $60,000 in cash and the balance in three
equal annual payments with interest at 6 per cent. The
party making the sale would receive 5 per cent, or $8,000
commission. 52

The law firm of Marron and Wood, Albuquerque, and E.
R. Wright, Santa Fe, represented the lumber company in the
proceedings to quiet the title to the grant, and the people who
lived in the several towns and villages on the grant were
represented by A. B. Renehan and by Charles C. Catron. The
gist of the matter was that although 650 acres had been set
aside as excluded from the grant, the residents of Ojo Sacro,
Canada de los Alamos, Diamante, Trampas, Valle, Llano
Chamisal (sometimes called Ojito) , and the possessions along
the Santa Barbara River raised questions of claim to addi-
tional portions of the grant on which these villages lay. An
agreement was reached whereby there would be segregated
from the grant a tract around each town and settlement large
enough to include all of the lands actually occupied. In turn,
the residents agreed to sign quitclaim deeds. 53

An additional agreement was reached with these residents
that they would have the right to graze their domestic ani-
mals on the grant outside of the segregations, could take
down timber for fuel and could take unmerchantable standing
timber for fence posts and vigas. The Trampas Lumber Com-
pany was also bound to yield right of way for existing irriga-
tion ditches and to protect the ditches in the course of their
operations. 54

The lumber company agreed to pay C. C. Catron $5,500
to secure quitclaim deeds from the inhabitants of the grant
covering the grant property lying outside the segregated
areas in accordance with the previous stipulation. 55 Frank

52. Letter Book No. 50, November 21, 1918, p. 336.

53. Las Trampas Lumber Co. v. Juan B. Ortega, et al., Stipulation, Bond Papers,
loc. cit.

54. Unrecorded agreement between Las Trampas Lumber Company and Squatters,
June 5, 1913. Bond Papers, loc. cit.

55. Agreement between Las Trampas Lumber Co. and C. C. Catron, June 2, 1913.
Bond Papers, loc. cit.

316 NEW MEXICO HISTORICAL REVIEW

Bond was somewhat impatient to have the entire matter
finally settled, 56 but the case was not a simple one. There were
288 defendants named in the action plus many unknown heirs
of deceased claimants.

The final decree was entered on April 16, 1914, in which
the Las Trampas Lumber Company was adjudged owner in
fee simple of the Trampas Grant except for the village reser-
vations, 57 thus leaving Frank Bond about where he started in
1903.

Bond's first prospect was T. A. Schomburg, then with the
Continental Tie and Lumber Company in Denver, who offered
$1.50 per 1,000 feet for stumpage on the grant. Although
Frank Bond had only been over the grant one time, he didn't
believe there was as much timber on it as the Chicago sur-
veyors estimated, and he much preferred to sell the grant
outright. 58 However, he went to Denver and discussed the
matter with Schomburg who then appointed F. R. Franken-
burger as his representative to go over the grant with W. A.
Ross who had made the original timber survey. 59

The next nibble by a prospective purchaser came from a
man named Blount in Walsenburg, Colorado, in August, 1914.
Like the Schomburg inquiry, nothing ever materialized. 60 In
October another prospect appeared, but was quoted a price of
$175,000 by someone in Albuquerque and evidenced no fur-
ther interest. Frank Bond was not at all pleased that someone
had quoted a price $15,000 higher than had been quoted to
other people, and he expressed his displeasure bluntly. 61

Several minor problems arose near the end of 1914. The
law firm of Renehan and Wright which had been active in the
title litigation submitted their statement to the Trampas
Lumber Company and a disagreement over it arose between
Renehan and the Las Trampas Lumber Company stock-
holders. Bond felt it was absolutely essential that pleasant

66. Letter Book No. 50, November 10, 1913, p. 253.

57. Las Trampas Lumber Co. v. Juan B. Ortega, et al., No. 840. Bond Papers, Joe. ctt.

58. Letter Book No. 51, February 23, 1914, p. 256 ; ibid., p. 263.

59. Ibid., April 1, 1914, p. 583 ; Letter Book No. 55, October 12, 1914, p. 444 ; ibid.,
p. 445 ; ibid,, October 14, 1914, p. 485.

60. Letter Book No. 5S, August 11, 1914, p. 594.

61. Letter Book No. 55, October 14, 1914, p. 485.

FRANK BOND 317

relations be maintained, and since he owned a one-half in-
terest in the company he paid half the bill without question
and secured a release for his interest. The other stockholders
were not informed of Bond's action, and he left them to fight
it out among themselves. 62 Other minor annoyances included
an over-valuation on the Rio Arriba tax assessment and the
imminent necessity of appealing it to the Board of Equaliza-
tion. Bond pointed out that the property was overvalued in
view of the fact that they couldn't even get an offer for it.

The next prospective buyer appeared in the form of a Mr.
Hartley in Kansas City in March, 1915. 63 Another inquiry
came in August from Walter G. Turley in Santa Fe who had
a colonization project in mind. Bond didn't think the property
was suitable for colonization, and nothing ever developed
from either of these two inquiries. 64 Before the year was out
Bond was willing to lower the asking price from $160,000 to
$135, OOO, 65 but the property was simply not attracting any
buyers.

Lumbering was no more successful at Trampas than it
had been at Truchas, and by 1919 the sawmill operation was
a failure, the blacksmith shop, mill, and roads were all aban-
doned, a deficit of over $25,000 had accumulated, and the
stockholders would have been happy to sell the whole grant
for$60,000. 66

8. Forbes Wool Company

The exact background and organizational beginnings of
the Forbes Wool Company are not only obscured by the
mists of time but also shrouded in a cloak of secrecy that
surrounded its ownership. As with several other enterprises,
clear black and white evidence concerning many points is not
available, but a great deal can be deduced from the records
remaining.

The Forbes Wool Company was located in Trinidad,
Colorado, and for many years was engaged in buying wool

62. Letter Book No. 53, July 21, 1914, p. 426.

63. Letter Book No. 57, March 25, 1915, p. 460.

64. Letter Book No. 59, August 2, 1915, p. 302.

65. Ibid., July 28, 1915, p. 248.

66. Capital Stock Tax Reports, Bond Papers, loc. cit.

318 NEW MEXICO HISTORICAL REVIEW

from the western growers, scouring it, and selling it in the
eastern markets. 1 The Bond records leave no trace of the
motivation for their acquisition of an interest in this scouring
mill, but Fred Warshauer was handling large quantities of
wool in Antonito, 2 and he was undoubtedly instrumental in
bringing George and Frank Bond into the company.

The first record we have of the Forbes Wool Company
tells of a trip that George Bond made to Trinidad early in
May of 1903 while he was still living in Wagon Mound. He
visited J. C. Huddelson at the First National Bank of Trini-
dad and borrowed $10,000 on an 8 per cent note due in three
months. With this money in his pocket, he called on E. J.
Huling who was at the time manager of the Forbes Wool
Company and paid him the $10,000 for stock in behalf of
himself and Frank Bond. Illustrating the informality of the
transaction, Huling did not happen to have the Forbes stock
certificate books at Trinidad, so Bond simply accepted a re-
ceipt for the money. He turned this receipt over to Huddelson
at the bank with the request that when Huling delivered the
stock to the bank the receipt should be returned to Huling. 3

Only nine months before the Bonds bought the plant, the
"Young Observer" reported that the Forbes Wool Company
had a "finely equipped scouring mill," 4 but the tenor of Bond's
correspondence on the subject does not lend credence to this
observation. Indeed, the Bonds felt that it was absolutely
necessary to make extensive improvements on the mill, and
they estimated that these improvements would result in a
saving of over 4 per cent on the capital stock in the handling
of wool in the new mill. 5 Just what these improvements might
have been is not now apparent.

The mill must nevertheless have been at least reasonably
operable, for the "Young Observer" also reported that the
Forbes mill enjoyed a very prosperous season just before the

1. Interview with J. E. Davenport.

2. Warshauer sold 1,500,000 pounds of wool late in 1899, requiring 100 railroad cars
to move the single shipment. The Shepherd's Bulletin of the National Wool Grower?
Association, III, No. 12 (December, 1898), 605.

8. Records, loc. eit.

4. "Young Observer in New Mexico," The American Shepherd's Bulletin, VII, No. 8
(August, 1902), 2599 (75).

5. Records, loc. cit.

FRANK BOND 319

Bonds acquired their interest. 8 For the next several years, at
least through 1905, the mill scoured about 4,000,000 pounds
of wool each year, 7 but whether the mill yielded a profit on
the scouring in those years immediately following the change
of ownership is uncertain. As a matter of fact, even the com-
plete ownership of the company in 1903 is uncertain. In ad-
dition to the Bonds, the other stockholders were T. A.
Schomburg and J. P. Van Heuten with interests of $1,000
each and Fred Warshauer who had an investment of $6,000.
The total investment of Schomburg, Van Heuten, Warshauer,
and the Bonds therefore totals only $18,000 a highly un-
likely total for the capital stock. Later indications are that
the total capital was $50,000, 8 which would leave $32,000 in
stock unaccounted for.

Only Brown 9 and Ruling were to know anything about
Warshauer's interest in the Forbes Wool Company, and
Frank Bond told Fred Warshauer that Schomburg, Van
Heuten, Lawrence, and Florsheim, who were referred to as
"the other crowd/' 10 should remain ignorant of Warshauer's
connection with the scouring mill because he didn't think they
could keep from talking. In order to keep Warshauer's con-
nection with the Bonds in this venture a closely guarded
secret, his stock was issued in the Bond name with the inten-
tion of transferring it later to Warshauer although some legal
way was sought to obviate the necessity of doing even this. 11

The background of this esoteric arrangement seems to
have been a bitter feeling between the Bonds and the Gross-
Kelly Company. There is evidence of some irritation with
H. W. Kelly as early as 1898 when George Bond at Wagon
Mound received an order for hay from Gross-Kelly. He
acknowledged the order and replied tartly :

Try to have the matter fixed so that the hay will be received at
point of shipment as this continual claim for shortage is
neither pleasant nor profitable. Our hay last year was all

6. "Young Observer in New Mexico," loc. cit.

I. The American Shepherd? 8 Bulletin, X, No. 9 (September, 1905), 882 (34).

8. Records, loc. cit.

9. Presumably of Brown & Adams.

10. Letter Book No. 6, February 25, 1903.

II. Ibid.

320 NEW MEXICO HISTORICAL REVIEW

weighed as it went into the cars and yet on one car the Co.
made claim for over one ton short, and to have this thing hap-
pen over again we would prefer not to do any hay business. 12

The roots of the quarrel with Kelly, however, went deeper.
There seem to have been certain generally defined geograph-
ical areas which each of the major wool buyers reserved, or
at least tried to reserve, for themselves, and any encroach-
ment by other wool buyers into the territory was distinctly
unwelcome. In addition, whereas the Bonds sold their wool
through Boston wool merchants, usually Brown & Adams,
Kelly was tied up with manufacturers and couldn't afford to
give any of his wool to a commission house. 13 With the com-
mission house out of the picture, Kelly could of course sell his
wool at higher prices and was in turn able to pay correspond-
ingly higher prices to the growers. Thus both Bond and
Brown & Adams were anxious to get Kelly to "come into
line," market his wool though Brown & Adams, and quit
buying wool at the higher prices that Bond couldn't pay. 14
As mentioned earlier, the Forbes mill bought wool, scoured
it, and then sold it to the Boston merchants ; Brown was in
Denver at about the time the Forbes transaction was being
considered, he discussed the matter with George Bond, and
he was thoroughly aware of the Bond-Warshauer interest.
These facts all lead to the intriguing theory that perhaps
Brown & Adams held or were planning to acquire some of the
unaccounted-for stock in the Forbes mill. If this were true,
the necessity for keeping Kelly in the dark would have as-
sumed even greater importance since Brown & Adams would
have then been realizing multiple profits on wool which was
processed by the mill and then shipped to them in Boston. It

12. Letter of G. W. Bond to H. W. Kelly, September 10, 1898, in the Gross-Kelly
Business Collection (University of New Mexico Library, Albuquerque). Cited hereafter
as Gross-Kelly Papers.

13. Letter Book No. 6, June 25, 1904.

14. Vide supra, chap, iii, pp. 61-62.

Kelly's position of not selling his wool through Brown and Adams had long been a
thorn in the Bonds' side ; in 1898 George Bond had complained about pricing disparities
and appealed to Kelly to assist in making an agreement that would have the effect of
pegging wool prices in Springer, Watrous, and Wagon Mound at the same level as those
being paid in Las Vegas. Letter of G. W. Bond to H. W. Kelly, June 24. 1898, Gross-
Kelly Papers, toe. eft.

FRANK BOND 321

would seem that Bond would have wanted his connection
cloaked also, but there may have been more compelling rea-
sons why Warshauer's interest could not be disclosed and
Bond's interest was open to view.

The entire question of territorial prerogative and mar-
keting policy reached a climax at just about the same time
that Bond and Warshauer were considering the purchase of
the Forbes Wool Company. George Bond had a meeting in
Denver with Brown early in 1903 at which the possibility of
getting Kelly to "come into line" 15 was discussed. A meeting
had been arranged in Boston at which Robbins and Jacob
Gross were to meet with Brown & Adams, presumably in an
effort to convince the former that they should sell their wool
through Brown & Adams. Brown indicated to George in Den-
ver that if Kelly wanted to join their "crowd," perhaps the
Bonds would be willing to concede some territory to Kelly as
an inducement. According to Frank Bond, in relating the
event to Fred Warshauer, "George stood flat-footed and said
that we would concede nothing in the way of territory." 16
Frank then added :

You [Warshauer] and we together are bigger wool buyers
than Gross-Kelly & Co. and undoubtedly so far we have been
much more successful as operators. Now we do not propose that
Kelly shall "Hog" [This word is almost illegible.] us out of
any of our territory or You and we both ought to insist that
he keep out of the D. & R.G. section. We think . . . instead of
giving up to Kelly, he ought to be willing to give up to us. ...
If it should come to a showdown we will simply tell B&A.
that we will sell our wool to whomsoever we please, and we will
discontinue to do business with them. . . . We do not propose to
have to buy Mr. Kelly in order to make him a peaceful oper-
ator, and a pleasant competitor.

We desire to stay with Brown & Adams, but we do not
wish to be sold out. We will do any thing that is fair, but
nothing more. We trust that nothing will come up of an un-
pleasant nature, and we hope that B&A. will be with us rather
than with Kelly. They however, are very anxious to get Kelly
in line, and handle his account, so I think that we may be pre-

15. I.e., market through Brown & Adams.

16. Letter Book No, 6. February 25, 1903.

322 NEW MEXICO HISTORICAL REVIEW

pared to be asked to do something for Mr. Kelly. Kelly is not
modest when it comes to asking something from the other
fellow."

Only a few days later Frank further pointed out to War-
shauer that Brown & Adams had nothing to lose if the Bonds
would make concessions to Kelly and everything to gain. He
wrote :

We are not blind to the fact that we can pull a much larger
crowd with us than Kelly ever can. If we should go out ... we
are pretty well satisfied that [Solomon] Floersheim and [Al-
bert] Lawrence would go with us. Floersheim does not love us
but he fears George. We would put up a combination with
them and other parties who are friendly with us, that would
make both Kelly and B&A. still think there were others who
could and would buy wool. 18

These ruffled feelings were not soothed in the least when
Kelly presumably circulated rumors in Las Vegas that the
Bonds had bought 5,000,000 pounds of wool. Frank Bond then
wrote : "He undoubtedly tells them all that we have the heavy
undesirable lots which he would not buy. We are the 'Suckers'
and he is the genius." 19

As a result, all efforts to convince Kelly that he should
market his wools through Brown & Adams must have failed,
or at least had only temporary effect, because from the middle
of 1907 through 1915 almost all the Gross-Kelly wool was
shipped to the Boston wool brokers, Salter Brothers and
Company. 20

17. Ibid.

18. Letter Book No. 6, February 28, 1903.

From the tenor of his remarks it would appear that Frank Bond was blissfully un-
aware that Kelly was a stockholder in the Floersheim Mercantile Company along with
Albert Lawrence, Arthur M. Blackwell, Jacob Gross, and Solomon Floersheim (Minute
Book, January 21, 1901, p. 26, in the Floersheim Business Collection [University of New
Mexico Library, Albuquerque]; ibid., January 20, 1903, p. 30). However, five years
earlier, in 1898, when George appealed to Kelly for a pricing agreement, he referred to
Kelly's "influence at Springer and Watrous" (Letter of G. W. Bond to H. W. Kelly,
June 24, 1898, Gross-Kelly Papers, loc. cit.) This might seem to indicate that perhaps
he did know something about the Kelly-Floersheim-Lawrence corporate relationship, but
if he did it is almost inconceivable that he would have expected Floersheim and Lawrence
to desert Kelly.

19. Letter Book No. 6, February 28, 1903.

20. Wool Record, July 30, 1907, to December, 1915, Gross-Kelly Papers, toe. eft. For
discussion of Salter Brothers vide supra, chap, iii, p. 304.

FRANK BOND 323

However, wool, like politics, makes strange bedfellows,
and it was no later than the summer of 1904 that Kelly, War-
shauer, and Bond entered into a three-way combination to
divide the 1904 fall wools and the 1905 Espanola spring
wools, Kelly even pushing to bring Floersheim into the com-
bination. 21 The honeymoon was short-lived, however, and by
July, 1905, Frank Bond had wearied of Kelly's carping. When
Kelly objected to the purchase of the 45,000 pound Otero clip
in Albuquerque for twenty-four cents, Bond guaranteed Kelly
against any loss and told him that he didn't wish to hear
anything more on the subject, 22 commenting that he pre-
ferred to "assume all chances of loss with our friend War-
shauer rather than hear from Mr. Kelly." 23

After this time no further dealings with Gross-Kelly are
recorded insofar as the wool business is concerned, and it was
not until 1915, almost ten years later, that Frank Bond wrote
to H.W.Kelly as follows:

I know that the kindliest feeling prevails between your people
and our people and I don't doubt but what we might be able
to be of some assistance to one another in various ways if we
tried really hard to do so; although I am positive we are not
harmful to one another at the present time. 24

Clarence E. Davenport apparently succeeded Huling as
manager, and he operated the mill for a number of years until
about 1910 when he joined the Bonds and moved to Encino
to work there. 25

The next mention of the Forbes Wool Company in the
Bond records appears in a letter dated March 16, 1910, from
G. W. Bond to the Bradstreet Company in Albuquerque in
which he noted that he and Frank owned stock in the Forbes
Wool Company, Trinidad, Colorado, as individuals. This ac-
counts for the fact that no investment figures appear on the
books of any of the Bond stores with respect to the Forbes
company.

21. Letter Book No. 6, June 25, 1904.

22. Ibid., July 7, 1905.

23. Ibid.

24. Letter Book No. 56, February 6, 1915, p. 703.

25. Interview with J. E. Davenport ; Letter Book No. 55, September 8, 1914, p. 158.

324 NEW MEXICO HISTORICAL REVIEW

At least as late as 1910 the Forbes Wool Company, under
the managership of T. G. Chittenden who succeeded Daven-
port in that capacity, was showing a profit. In that year, the
plant handled over 3,000,000 pounds of wool and netted a
profit of $9,046.42. But this followed a year that had closed
with a cumulative loss to date of $1,329.86. 26

Belying the decline that was to commence shortly, the
financial condition of the Forbes Wool Company on March
28, 1911, appeared as shown in Table 48. An examination of
the income and expenses for this year reveals that the profit
was realized from sorting, scouring, and burring wool, with
no indication that any profit whatsoever was gained from the
buying and selling of wool.

TABLE 48

STATEMENT, FORBES WOOL COMPANY

March 28, 1911

Resources

Amount

Cash $ 4,005.66

Inventory 8 469.09

Accounts Receivable 3,726.95 b

Fixed Plant 49,514.86

Wool Advances 19,592.88

Total $77,309.44

Liabilities

Bills Payable $19,592.88

Capital Stock 50,000.00

Surplus 7,716.56

Total $77,309.44

* Soap and sacks.
All good.

The following year, 1912, told a different story. In spite
of Chittenden's hope that "should we get as much wool to
scour this year as last, we should be able to make a somewhat
better showing," 27 the income from the scouring work fell
from $37,516.61 to $1,828.55, and the year ended with a net
loss of $469.21. 28

26. Records, loe. eit.

27. Ibid.

28. Records, loc. eit.

FRANK BOND 325

The plight of the Forbes Wool Company worsened
steadily. In 1914 Frank Bond charged off a loss of $4,691.24
on the Forbes Wool Company on his personal books, 29 and by
this time he was carrying his investment in the company at
a mere $750. 30

Operations during 1914 must have been the last straw
for Frank Bond for by February, 1915, he was convinced
that it was hopeless to attempt operating the plant, and he
favored closing it down entirely and selling the building and
machinery for what they could get. 31 In April he wrote his
brother :

It would suit me for them to scrap the whole thing and get
what they can for it. If you feel the same about it, I wish you
would write them. ... If they continue another year, they will
be calling on the stockholders to pay the expenses, and for
what purpose? It would simply be throwing money into a
hole.32

The last mention of the Forbes Wool Company before the
close of 1915 was one more try on the part of Frank Bond
to recognize a losing proposition when he saw one. In June
he summed up its inevitable demise in a letter to J. C. Hud-
delson who was then president of the Forbes Wool Company,
saying :

There is very little scouring done in the west any more, as the
general run of the wools can be sold to better advantage in the
grease, and furthermore it is very doubtful that it will ever
become a popular way of handling our wools again to any
extent.33

9. Bond, McCarthy Company

In 1863 a young Prussian teenager named Alexander
Gusdorf came west to Santa Fe. Starting work for A. Stabb
in Santa Fe, he soon struck out on his own and opened his own
general merchandise store at Penasco. Alex soon moved to
Ranches de Taos and opened up a flour mill, then ultimately

29. Ibid.

30. Ibid.

31. Letter Book No. 57, February 6, 1915, p. 4.

32. Ibid., April 17, 1915, p. 612.

33. Letter Book No. 58, June 4, 1915, p. 399.

326 NEW MEXICO HISTORICAL REVIEW

Taos itself saw a general store bearing the name of Gusdorf. 1
During this time his younger immigrant half brother, Gerson
Gusdorf , was stranded in New York City by the death of his
uncle with whom he had been living, and at the age of four-
teen Gerson, like Alex before him, traveled westward,
joining the family at Ranches de Taos. 2

Meanwhile, an undertaker named T. G. McCarthy re-
ceived into his home in Pueblo, Colorado, a brother by the
name of Justin H. McCarthy who had trekked westward in
1898. Before long, young Justin learned that an opening as
a bookkeeper existed in a general store in Espanola which
was operated by George W. Bond and Frank Bond. He suc-
cessfully applied for the position and thus began a business
association that lasted until 1932. 3

The Gusdorf store at Taos prospered, but Alexander Gus-
dorf 's sixteen-year-old son, Melvin, died near the turn of the
century, and the grieving parents rapidly lost the drive and
will so necessary to the successful operation of a business
during those times. 4 Undoubtedly it was through their mutual
friend, Staab, that young Gerson Gusdorf came to know the
Bond brothers, so when Alexander Gusdorf began to think
of selling out, the team of Bond, Gerson Gusdorf, and Justin
H. McCarthy began to emerge.

The basic transactions took place on September 12, 1904,
which put the three new partners into business. McCarthy
gave his note to the Bonds for $1,436.66 and secured $3,-
563.34 from the Pueblo National Bank. Whether this latter
sum was a withdrawal of his own funds or received on a note
to the bank is unknown. Gerson Gusdorf added $3,700 to the
$5,000 put in by McCarthy, and George and Frank Bond
supplied a $10,000 note dated September 1 in favor of Alex-
ander Gusdorf and $4,800 in cash to make up the $23,500
which the new owners paid to Alexander Gusdorf 5 for a
business with an inventory value of $23,800 including less

1. Interview with Mrs. Elsie Gusdorf Weimer, Taos, New Mexico, January 10, 1958.

2. Interview with Mrs. Gerson Gusdorf, Taos, New Mexico, January 10, 1958.
8. Interview with John F. McCarthy.

4. Interview with Mrs. Elsie Gusdorf Weimer.

6. Cash Book and Journal, September, 1904 (in the files of John F. McCarthy, Taoa,
New Mexico). Material at Taos cited hereafter as McCarthy Papers.

FRANK BOND 327

than $100 worth of scales, jewelry cases, a cigar case, a hat
case, and other fixtures. 6 In order to set the business on firm
ground, the Bonds supplied another $5,000 in cash for the
business to use. 7

Business started off promptly the next day, September
13, 1904, when cash sales amounted to $215 and John Dunn
bought $25 worth of merchandise on account. 8

Actual incorporation of the new firm did not occur until
October 25, 1904, when George Bond, Frank Bond, Gusdorf ,
and McCarthy associated themselves together under the pro-
visions of Chapter I, Title 5 of the Compiled Laws of New
Mexico of 1887. 9 The name "Bond, Gusdorf, McCarthy Com-
pany" was adopted and Frank Bond, Gusdorf, and McCarthy
elected themselves president, vice-president, and secretary,
treasurer, and general manager. The Articles of Incorpora-
tion disclose the purpose for which the business was organ-
ized, and they describe so well not only the Taos store but
also most of the other Bond organizations, that the object
of the business is quoted verbatim :

To buy, sell, exchange, barter, deal in and incumber wool,
hides, pelts, sheep, cattle, horses and other livestock, and the
products thereof, and to buy, sell, exchange, barter, deal in
and incumber all kinds and classes of goods, wares, and mer-
chandise, and to operate and carry on a general merchandise
business. 10

The store was capitalized at $30,000, the stock consisting
of one dollar par value shares. Ten thousand shares were
issued to McCarthy, and a like amount to Gerson Gusdorf;
Frank and George Bond divided the remaining 10,000 shares
between them equally. 11 That the partners divided the stock
in this manner despite the unequal cash contributions made
as described above strongly indicates that the organizational
pattern here closely followed that of the other stores where

6. Ibid.

7. Ibid.

8. Ibid.

9. Articles of Incorporation, McCarthy Papers, toe. eit.

10. Ibid.

11. Minutes of Board of Directors' Meeting, November 15, 1904, McCarthy Papers,
toe. cit.

328 NEW MEXICO HISTORICAL REVIEW

the other partners' interests were given in return for the
security of a personal note payable to the Bonds. However,
they executed a formal agreement not to sell their stock to
any outsider without first offering it to the other shareholders
on the same terms. 12

The size of the merchandise investment carried by the
Bond, Gusdorf , McCarthy Company and later by Bond, Mc-
Carthy was a continual source of irritation to Frank Bond
who felt that the business could be well conducted on a lesser
stock of merchandise. Bond wrote of his concern in 1905 13
and again at the end of 1908 when he pointed out that the
stock investment was up to $55,000 and as much business
could be done on $40,000. 14 In 1913, Frank Bond pressed
McCarthy hard again on the subject. 15 Indeed, the stock in-
vestment averaged just under $51,000 for the period from
organization through 1915, and the year which reflected the
greatest profits, 1915, closed with a stock investment of only
$39,900, surprisingly close to Frank Bond's estimate. 16

Furniture and Fixtures, which averaged about $4,000,
were valued at 90 per cent of cost in consonance with their
usual practice, and there were no significant changes to the
account between 1904 and 1915.

Renting sheep was not one of the major activities in Taos,
there rarely being more than $100 or so tied up in rented
sheep until 1912 when the sheep account began to grow. By
1915 Bond, McCarthy had $12,800 invested in sheep, repre-
senting 3,640 head, and by that time some profit on this phase
of the business was beginning to be realized. 17

Cash was usually short, the bank balances were small,
and accounts and bills receivable comprised the important
part of the current assets aside from merchandise. Those
accounts which by specific analysis were expected to be un-
collectible were charged off at the end of the year, but a note
of year-end pessimism in this respect is evident since a goodly

12. Records, loe. eit.

13. Letter Book No. 6, June 9, 1905.

14. Ibid., January 13, 1909.

16. Letter Book No. 50, October 16, 1913, p. 83.

16. Records, lac. cit.

17. Ibid.

FRANK BOND 329

portion of these were frequently collected in the following
year and were reflected as profit. These data are tabulated
in Table 49.

TABLE 49

BOND, MCCARTHY RECEIVABLES ACTIVITY

(dollars in thousands)

Year Receivables Charged Off Collected in

Succeeding Year

1905 $35.7 $1.6 $

1906 44.2 3.4

1907 51.5 8.5

1908 51.1 2.5

1909 49.7 3.0 1.1

1910 45.4 .2 2.1

1911 56.1 5.0 1.2

1912 58.4 5.1 3.0

1913 62.9 2.4 2.3

1914 66.8 2.8 2.6

1915 63.9 2.6

Minor balance sheet items included horses, 18 cattle, a few
hides and pelts, and some of the camp buildings at Servilleta.

Like the assets, there were no violent fluctuations in the
liabilities; bills payable constituted a significant share and
generally amounted to between $25,000 and $30,000. It was
a typical mercantile store, and there was always from $3,000
to $9,000 in payables to depositors. 19

In June of 1905, the year following organization, Frank
Bond heard that McCarthy had tried his hand at politics and,
having run, failed to acquire office. This was the occasion of
a rebuke reflecting a Bond point of view which explains in
many ways the background role they played in the political
life of New Mexico :

We have never mixed politics or religion in our business and
we certainly do not wish you to do so. ... Keep a still mouth as
regards politics or religion. They have nothing to do with busi-
ness, and buy carefully and judiciously and you will be sure to
make a success. 20

18. In 1905, 1906 and 1907 a $280 investment included two sets of harness, one team,
and one buggy.

19. Records, loc. cit.

20. Letter Book No. 6, June 9, 1906.

330 NEW MEXICO HISTORICAL REVIEW

At the same time Bond took the opportunity to caution him
about over-buying on shoes, advising that he would have to
meet his own bills and not expect help. This kind of advice
was a normal part of Bond's general supervision from Es-
panola and punctuated his efforts to make the local store
managers pay their way without additional financial assist-
ance from Espanola. On the other hand, it is observed that
however dire the threat, money was always forthcoming
when there was a real need. 21

The profits at the end of 1905, covering the sixteen months
of operation since September of the previous year, amounted
to $17,274.61 which was distributed $5,758.20 each to Mc-
Carthy and Gusdorf with a like amount being divided be-
tween the Bonds, a very respectable return on invested
capital. 22 These profits were distributed at the end of 1905,
and it is noted that they were never distributed in cash. They
were, in fact, returned to the stock account at the end of
1906. 23 At the end of 1905, too, the capital stock of Bond,
Gusdorf, McCarthy Company was increased from $30,000 to
$40,000 by the contribution of $10,000 in sheep by the Bonds
who in return received 5,000 more shares of stock each. 24

The profits over the years from organization through
1915 are shown in Table 50.

By the end of 1907, profits had continued to remain de-
pressed, and Gerson Gusdorf sold his interest in the business
to the remaining partners. By this time Gusdorf had accumu-
lated $7,617.55 in profits which, added to his $10,000 capital
stock interest, enabled him to pay the Bonds the $14,583.79
which he owed on two notes and thus leave the business with
just over $3,000 in cash. 25 In this transaction the Bonds
acquired 6,666 shares. 26 J. H. McCarthy acquired 3,333
shares, and one share was issued to the bookkeeper, Charles
J. H. Robinson, probably to provide a third officer of the

21. Supra, chap. vli.

22. Journal, December, 1905, McCarthy Papers, loe. cit.

23. Journal, December, 1906, McCarthy Papers, tec. cit. Taxes for 1905 amounted to
just $145.80.

24. Journal, December, 1905, McCarthy Papers, loc. cit.
26. Journal, January, 1908, McCarthy Papers, lac. cit.
26. Divided equally between Frank and George Bond.

FRANK BOND 331

TABLE 50

BOND, MCCARTHY NET PROFITS

(dollars in thousands)

Year

Amount

1905

$17.3

1906

5.4

1907

5.1

1908

9.1

1909

8.3

1910

1.5

1911

8.9

1912

15.6

1913

7.7

1914

13.0

1915 ...

18.7

company. 27 Again, the McCarthy stock was financed by the
Bonds, and so the ownership now stood as shown in Table 51.

TABLE 51

BOND, MCCARTHY STOCKHOLDERS

Stockholder Shares Held

G. W. Bond 13,333

Frank Bond 13,333

J. H. McCarthy 13,333

C. J. H. Robinson 1

Total 40.000

A serious slump in profits occurred in 1910, and Frank
Bond didn't expect McCarthy's health to permit his continu-
ance in the business beyond that year. 28 He suggested that if
it did become necessary to make a change at Taos that they
might give one man stock in the company and the other a
percentage of the profits. Even though this never material-

27. Journal, January, 1908, McCarthy Papers, loc. cit. Most of the records of the
company were destroyed by a fire in 1932 that consumed an entire city block in Taos.
Unanswered, as a result, is the question of when the name of Gusdorf was dropped from
the corporate entity. Certificate No. 1 of the Bond, McCarthy Company was not issued
until February, 1916, so it is possible that the Gusdorf name continued until that time
in a legal sense although after 1907 the firm is always referred to in the correspondence
as Bond, McCarthy.

28. McCarthy's health apparently improved for he continued in active partnership
with the Bonds for many years afterward. Mrs. McCarthy, however, contracted mumps
and died in premature childbirth on April 16, 1915, leaving Justin and their five small
children. Frank Bond, Louis Nohl, and Andy Wiest went immediately to McCarthy's
side in Taos and then as he returned his wife to Chicago for burial all three of them
accompanied McCarthy on the train as far as Pueblo, Colorado. Letter Book No. 57,
April 17, 1916, p. 610.

332 NEW MEXICO HISTORICAL REVIEW

ized, it did indicate that a change in the way in which the
managers were employed was considered. 29

Also under consideration at this time was the possibility
of purchasing the stock of the Taos Mercantile Company. The
Santa Barbara Tie and Pole Company was interested also,
and Bond suggested that they offer sixty-five cents on the
dollar for the Taos stock and then throw out the undesirable
items. If they did finally buy it, they planned to close the store
at once and lock it up because they feared that the sellers
might go in and remove a large part of the stock if it were
left unguarded. 30 However, there is no indication that this
transaction was ever consummated.

The year 1912 turned out excellently, and the higher
profits were due not only to slightly greater earnings on mer-
chandise sales but also to wool trading in an even greater
degree. In this year there was over $9,000 profit reported on
wool in contrast to no profit at all two years previously when,
in 1910, profits were so very low. However, total sales of
$97,600 in 1912 were not too far above the $94,000 total sales
of 1910. 31

Nineteen thirteen ended badly, and in October Frank
Bond was prompted to remark that it was the hardest year
of his experience. 32 He punctuated his distress by trying to

32. Letter Book No. 50, October 16, 1913, p. 81.

spur McCarthy on to exert his best, cautioning him to start
paying dividends, "otherwise what is the use in being in
business?" 33 To make matters worse, it was about this time
that in receiving a shipment of sheep, it seems that someone
opened the loading pens and let some sheep back into an
uncounted bunch, so they bought them again. 34 McCarthy, of
course, had to stand his share of the loss, and what with
merchandise profits being off more than $4,000 the year
turned out rather disastrously. However, as can be seen from
Table 50, supra, the last two years of the period told a differ-
ent and more cheerful story.

29. Letter Book No. 6, March 16, 1910.

80. Ibid.

31. Records, loc. cit.

33. Ibid., p. 83.

34. Ibid., October 30, 1913, p. 178.

FRANK BOND 333

After the poor showing in 1913 the belt was tightened and
salaries were cut. Among them was the bookkeeper's 35 salary
which was reduced to $100 per month. Frank Bond felt that
this was enough for a bookkeeper anyway. He quit. 36 This is
not to say, however, that salary-cutting was a favorite form
of amusement engaged in just to increase profits. Indeed, the
contrary is illustrated by an incident that occurred in early
1909. Robinson's salary had been raised by George Bond, the
increase amounting to $16.66 per month. Justin McCarthy
had not fully agreed with this increase, and George felt that
his attitude as a result was cold and distant. He stated that
"there must be no friction between us" 37 and promptly ar-
ranged to pay the increase himself out of his own pocket.
This type of action was not at all unusual within the Bond
organization, particularly if it helped to prevent any type of
friction, misunderstanding, or whisper of unfairness.

Wool activities on the Taos books were generally low.
This was due to the fact that most of McCarthy's wool activi-
ties were handled separately on a joint account with Bond
and the Warshauer-McClure Sheep Company of Antonito.
Taos wools were among the riskiest wools handled by Bond,
and in 1915 he completed an agreement with Brown &
Adams of Boston under the terms of which they would guar-
antee Bond against loss on his wools, give him the first cent of
profit, take the next half cent for themselves, and give Bond
the balance if any. In completing this arrangement, Bond
was careful to keep Taos wools out of the agreement in order
that the profit on Espanola or Antonito wools might not have
to cover losses on the Taos wools. 38 Taos wool was to be set
up in a separate agreement and Justin McCarthy was not at
all pleased. This prompted Frank Bond to reply :

You know that I always handle wool and sheep business
that [sic] same as if it were my own, and I believe so far I
have not made many mistakes, at least you have always made
some money, but I am bound to guess wrong some time, and I

35. Named Thompson, first initials unknown.

36. Letter Book No. 51, February 24, 1914, p. 274.

37. Letter Book No. 6, January 13, 1909.

88. Letter Book No. 57, February 8, 1915, p. 12 ; ibid., February 9, 1915, p. 33.

334 NEW MEXICO HISTORICAL REVIEW

just wish to say that any time you desire I will turn it over to
you, and you can make your own deals, not that I desire to
get rid of the trouble, as I am perfectly willing to stay with
the job as long as it is agreeable to you. 39

A few weeks later Bond forwarded McCarthy $5,000,
representing the profit on Taos wools. Bond shared his
half of the profit, as usual, with Warshauer-McClure. 40

These rebukes to his managers were actually very
straightforward expressions of opinion. While they occurred
not infrequently, they were calculated to train the managers
in Bond policy and philosophy. In setting up the various or-
ganizations, the Bonds selected men who had exihibited
promise of being able to follow their own pattern of business
practice, helped them get started, steered them along the way,
and ultimately saw them go out on their own. After sending
one tart letter, Bond soothed McCarthy :

We did not start you in Taos just with the selfish motive of
improving our own fortunes but also of helping out a deserv-
ing man. The time will come when you don't need our backing
. . . when that time comes, we will sell out to you and wish you
well."

They did, too, twenty-three years later.

10. G. W. Bond & Bro. Mercantile Company

The G. W. Bond & Bro. Mercantile Company, Encino,
New Mexico, was organized in 1905 by G. W. Bond and Frank
Bond. The brothers were equal partners in the new company,
but one share of stock was issued to Louis F. Nohl in order
to qualify him for the post of secretary and treasurer to
which he was elected at the first directors' meeting on No-
vember 5, 1905. 1 The election of G. W. Bond as president and

39. Ibid., February 8, 1915, p. 31.

40. Ibid., March 25, 1915, p. 466 ; ibid., p. 468.

41. Letter Book No. 6, January 13, 1909.

1. Almost thirteen years later Frank Bond wrote: "I enclose . . . certificate No. 6
for one share of ... stock issued to Louis F. Nohl. This share of stock was originally
issued to Mr. Nohl without consideration to qualify him to act as an officer of the Com-
pany. Now that Mr. Nohl is dead the stock should revert to the corporation." Letter of
Frank Bond to Clarence E. Davenport, Encino, April 80, 1918, Bond Papers, loe. eit.

FRANK BOND 335

Frank Bond as vice-president completed the directorate
which continued without change until Mr. Nohl's death thir-
teen years later. 2

The business was capitalized at $25,000 with 25,000
shares of stock authorized and issued, and additional finan-
cial support was provided by a loan of $33,180.39 from G. W.
Bond & Bro., Espanola. This loan was paid off in 1910 when
the accumulated undivided profits had very nearly reached
that figure. 3 The only other inter-company complication
affecting the Encino store occurred in July, 1914, when the
G. W. Bond & Bro. Mercantile Company joined the A. Mac-
Arthur Company, the Bond & Nohl Company, and the Bond,
McCarthy Company and became a stockholder in the Bond-
Connell Sheep and Wool Company, owning 5,000 shares of
stock. 4 This represented the only investment in outside com-
panies during the period, and the loan from Espanola was
the only major outside financial support the business in En-
cino ever required in that time.

Charles A. Scheurich, a native of Taos, was appointed
general manager of the new store, and his salary was fixed
at $100 per month. He was instructed :

Proceed at once to secure a desirable location at Encino, Tor-
ranee County, New Mexico, for store building &c., and immedi-
ately purchase lumber in the best market possible, for the
erection of buildings, and secure carpenters to erect buildings
suitable for a General Merchandise business to be carried on
at Encino. 5

Scheurich went to Encino, and the store was duly built on six
acres of land across the street from the Santa Fe Railroad
tracks at an initial cost of $5,400. 6

The company was formed for the express purpose of
operating a general merchandise store at Encino, but it is
observed that the registered offices of the company were
never there. They remained in Espanola until 1918 when

2. Record of Minutes (in the files of Frank Bond & Son, Inc., Albuquerque) .

3. Records, loc. cit.

4. Infra., chap. xiii.

5. Record of Minutes, loc. cit.

6. Records, loc. cit.

336 NEW MEXICO HISTORICAL REVIEW

they were moved to Albuquerque. This anomaly is further
highlighted by the corporate seal which was adopted by the
directors at their first meeting. It read: "G. W. Bond and
Brother Mercantile Company, Encino, Torrance County,
N. M." 7 The confusion is completed by the actual impression
of the seal which was pressed into the corporate minutes. It
read: "G. W. Bond and Brother Mercantile Company, Es-
panola, Rio Arriba County, N. M." 8

The new company was officially formed on November 5,
1905, with the first meeting of the board of directors although
it had opened its doors for business on October 11. However,
it was not until April of the following year that stock certifi-
cates were issued, and the first meeting of the stockholders
did not take place until September, 1906. This lack of atten-
tion to relatively minor corporate details might with respect
to most businesses in New Mexico's early days appear to be
trivial, but in the light of Frank Bond's firm policy that such
matters be attended to promptly it is enigmatic, and perhaps
it foreshadowed the rocky road which the Encino business
was destined to travel, ending many years later in misunder-
standing, heartbreak, and insolvency.

The Bonds gave Scheurich a salary, the title of General
Manager, and a mandate to build a store in Encino. It ap-
pears, however, from the correspondence that shortly after
relinquishing active management of the store in Wagon
Mound, George Bond spent a great deal of his time at Encino.
That it was only part-time supervision though is indicated
by the fact that his family remained in Trinidad. 9 This con-
tinued in varying degree until the brothers decided to dissolve
their Espanola partnership George moving to Boise, Idaho.

7. Record of Minutes, lor. cit.

8. Ibid.

9. A letter written in 1907 by Frank Bond to George in Encino (Letter Book No. 6,
September 17, 1907) mentioned that George's wife, Agnes (Frank called her "Aggie."),
was in Trinidad. It appears that after George moved his family from Wagon Mound to
Trinidad he spent a great deal of time at Encino. Scheurich was, of course, running the
store, but George Bond had to take care of the sheep and wool business in the area for
G. W. Bond & Bro., Espanola. As soon as they were able to get a man in who could
handle sheep and wool as well as the merchandise line, it seems that George returned
to Trinidad although he wrote letters from Encino as late as January, 1910. Other cor-
respondence during these years reveals George's presence in Trinidad and San Diego
as well.

FRANK BOND 337

During the first two years of operation the Encino ven-
ture was limited fairly well to the mercantile business al-
though hides and pelts were a minor source of income from
the start and continued to be so. 10 Beans, cattle, lumber, and
interest were also minor sources of earnings.

When the Encino store was established it was agreed that
interest of 6 per cent would be paid to the stockholders on
their capital stock investment and charged off as an expense
of the business and that the remaining profits would not be
divided until such time as it might be possible to declare a
100 per cent dividend or by mutual consent. 11 These profits
on the new business started off rather well, and except for
1913 when net profits amounted to the magnificent sum of
$174.41 they continued so. At the end of 1915, after ten years
of operation, undivided profits had accumulated in the
amount of $94,333.27. Since no profits had been withdrawn
except the 6 per cent annual interest paid on investment, the
total profit picture for the ten years amounted to $15,000
more than this, or almost $110,000 for an average annual
earning of $11,000. 12

Table 52 shows the net profits for the years from organ-
ization through 1915 and includes the 6 per cent interest on
$25,000 capital stock which was not considered by them to
be profit.

It is a little surprising, therefore, to discover that on
September 17, 1907, less than two years after the founding,
Frank Bond wrote his brother in Encino suggesting that they
sell the Encino store. It certainly could not have been the
profit picture at that time, and indeed Frank suggested that
the investment in "this other thing" was much larger and
required careful "nursing and watching." 13 Just exactly
what the other investment was to which he alluded is un-
known, but the urgency of the matter apparently passed for

10. In a letter to Walter Connell (Letter Book No. 58, May 1, 1915, p. 16) Frank
Bond wrote: "Dick Dillon seems to be a puzzle to all of us, the way he handles his pelt
business." Dillon had just sold his pelts for 17%, cents. Letter Book No. 57, March 9,
1915, p. 811.

11. Letter of G. W. Bond to Frank Bond, January 4, 1908, Bond Papers, loc. cit. ;
Letter of G. W. Bond to Frank Bond, July 25, 1911, Bond Papers, loc. cit.

12. Records, loc. cit.

13. Letter Book No. 6, September 17, 1907.

338 NEW MEXICO HISTORICAL REVIEW

TABLE 52

G. W. BOND & BRO. MERCANTILE COMPANY EARNINGS
(dollars in thousands)

Year Amount

1906 $ 4.1

1907 7.3

1908 3.3

1909 16.3

1910 9.6

1911 6.1

1912 24.1

1913 1.7

1914 15.1

1915 21.9

the store was never sold. However, talk continued about sell-
ing the business, sometimes sparked by the spotty profits and
sometimes by the general dissatisfaction with management. 14
In 1909 there was some talk that Charles Ilfeld was seriously
considering the purchase of the Bond's Encino store and had
said he would do so if he could get a satisfactory man to run
it. 15 Nothing ever came of this, however, as Ilfeld's manager
at Willard was fully aware of the declining number of sheep
being run in the Willard-Palma-Encino area.

Late in 1907 Richard C. Dillon was traveling the Estancia
Valley selling merchandise for the Gross-Kelly Company. A
native of St. Louis, Dillon had come to New Mexico in 1889
at the age of twelve. He was employed for a time as a track
man on the Atlantic and Pacific Railroad in Arizona and
subsequently worked a few years as a clerk in the Floersheim
Mercantile Company at Springer. 16 He went with the Gross-
Kelly Company in Las Vegas in 1902, working in the hide
and wool department, and was later transferred to Albu-
querque as a traveling salesman. 17 He worked out of Albu-
querque through the Rio Grande and Estancia valleys and
was not unknown to the Bond brothers who offered him a
position one day as he came through Encino. Dillon accepted

14. Letter Book No. 5S, passim.

16. Letter of G. W. Bond to Frank Bond, January 1, 1910, Bond Papers, loc. eit.

16. Coan, op. cit., II, 15.

17. Davis, op. eit., I, 180.

FRANK BOND 339

and announced his resignation from the Gross-Kelly Com-
pany by simply wiring his decision from Estancia; Kelly's
sharp displeasure was expressed in strained relations be-
tween them for many years afterwards. 18

Scheurich left on January 1, 1908, and moved to Clovis
where he established a mercantile business and engaged in
insurance, real estate, and building and loan activities. 19 The
precise reason for Scheurich's displacement is not stated, but
there is no evidence to indicate that he had been expected to
extend himself beyond mercantile management, so as George
opened up the area for sheep and wool it became necessary
to have a man of wider experience. 20 Dillon assumed the post
of general manager at once, although the corporate minutes
did not reflect his official status in that respect, and it was
not until February, 1916, that the directors officially ap-
pointed him to that position. 21

The generosity of the Bond brothers and the vision which
they displayed in the development of promising young men
had a far-reaching and lasting impact on the economic and
political development of the Territory that has lasted even
until the present time. The Bond associates not only have
played important roles in the economic life of New Mexico
but also have been active in the shaping of state and local
affairs. 22 Nearly all of them have been financially successful,
and a number of prominent New Mexico families can trace
their economic lineage to George and Frank Bond. The em-
ployment arrangement with Dillon, both generous and typi-
cal, is deserving of more detailed attention.

It was originally contemplated that the capital stock of

18. Interview with R. C. Dillon, Encino, 1956.

19. Davis, op. tit., II, 1951.

20. The only intimation of possible dissatisfaction with Scheurich is contained in
G. W. Bond's statement to Frank that "Dillon is now here and in charge and I am very
much pleased with the change." Letter of G. W. Bond to Frank Bond, January 4, 1908,
Bond Papers, loc. cit.

21. Record of Minutes, loc. cit.

22. Dillon rose to become a state senator in 1925 and was later elected governor of
New Mexico, serving from 1927 to 1931, the first New Mexico governor ever to succeed
himself in office (Davis, ojt. cit., I, 180). Ed Sargent served as state auditor, was elected
a county commissioner in Rio Arriba County, and became lieutenant governor of New
Mexico in 1925 (Coan, op. cit., II, 5). Walter Connell was active in Albuquerque city
affairs and served on the city commission, and a later partner, C. G. Gunderson, was a
gubernatorial candidate.

340 NEW MEXICO HISTORICAL REVIEW

the G. W. Bond & Bro. Mercantile Company would be in-
creased to $45,000 and that Dillon would have $15,000 of it.
Bond estimated that Dillon would be able, under a one-third
profit-sharing agreement, to pay out his stock in five years
and that he might even accomplish this sooner if he had one
or two good sheep and wool years. George Bond considered
that Dillon was a good man on these activities outside the
store and counted on him to pursue vigorously all phases of
the business to achieve this end. 23 However, this increase in
the capital of the company did not develop in quite that way.

Dillon was to receive a salary of $125 per month, 24 and in
addition he was to receive one-third of the profits from the
business. It was agreed that all profits would remain un-
divided until the business was sold out or until a 100 per cent
dividend could be declared. If at any time Dillon wished to
buy one-third of the capital stock he could do so by giving a
note in favor of G. W. Bond and Frank Bond, and he would
then receive one-third of the capital stock in return. 23 Interest
on the note would be paid at 6 per cent and annual dividends
of 6 per cent would be declared so that Dillon would be able
to pay his interest on the note ; all other profits would remain
undivided in accordance with the agreement. 26

If Dillon did not wish to take one-third of the stock on a
personal note to the Bonds, he was at liberty to let his one-
third earnings accrue and then to pay cash for an interest in
the company at such time as it might be mutually agreed to
declare a 100 per cent dividend. 27 It was not until 1917 that
Dillon exercised his option and purchased 6,333 shares of
the stock, representing a 25.3 per cent interest in the
business. 28

This arrangement for Dillon's advent into the Bond
system was explained by George Bond who wrote : "Mr. Dil-

23. Letter of G. W. Bond to Frank Bond, January 4, 1908, Bond Papers, toe. eit.

24. Interview with R. C. Dillon.

25. Presumably the stock would become the security for the note. Since Dillon never
followed through on this exchange of a note for stock, the point is not recorded. How-
ever, this was the usual procedure.

26. Letter of G. W. Bond to Frank Bond, January 4, 1908, Bond Papers, loe. eit.;
Letter of G. W. Bond to Frank Bond, July 25, 1911. Bond Papers, toe. eft.

27. Records, toe. eft.

28. Stock Certificate Book (in the files of Frank Bond & Son., Inc., Albuquerque).

FRANK BOND 341

Ion gets his interest in this business by virtue of being the
manager and has full control of the business in every way." 29

Sales figures for the first year of the Dillon era are not
available, but in the following year, 1909, they amounted to
a staggering $93,000 and represented a turnover of almost
five times on merchandise. 30 George Bond, however, was
pretty well convinced by this time that 1909 was a high year
and that the Encino business could not make more than $2,500
a year over and above expenses and interest on investment. 31
However, as previously noted, earnings actually went con-
siderably over this figure, and in 1915 they sold almost $82,-
000 in merchandise to customers. 32

Cash balances carried by the mercantile company were
heavier than would have been thought necessary, and they
are noteworthy in that such large cash reserves were not
typical of the policies of the Bonds as exercised in their other
areas of interest. Balances at the end of 1912, 1913, 1914, and
1915 were generally in the neighborhood of $12,000 to $18,-
000, most of it being carried in the First National Bank of
Santa Fe. 33

A characteristic of the Encino store that was reflected
continuously throughout the period from its founding
through 1915 was the large size of the book receivables. In
seven years out of the ten, accounts receivable exceeded the
inventory of merchandise. 34 In 1914 they amounted to $28,-
270.76 and represented accounts with 131 customers ranging
in size from $.25 to $4,176.60. 35 A comparison of the receiv-
ables and year-end inventory is shown in Table 53.

In spite of the relatively high level of receivables, losses
were not as great as might be expected. They were usually
valued at 90 per cent, but in 1915, the only year for which
specific write-off information is available, only $419.48 were

29. Records, loc. cit.

30. Letter of G. W. Bond to Frank Bond, January 1, 1910, Bond Papers, loc. cit.

31. Ibid.

32. Records, loc. cit.

33. Ibid.

34. Ibid.

35. Accounts payable amounted to $4,444.75 in that year and represented cash de-
posits from twenty-six customers, there being nothing at all due to wholesale suppliers.
Ibid.

342 NEW MEXICO HISTORICAL REVIEW

written off, against almost $26,000 in receivables. 36 However
the necessity of carrying the accounts gave Frank Bond
pause, and in 1914 he wrote: "I don't believe in putting all
our profits year after year in accounts and rented sheep.
There is a happy limit to all these things." 37

TABLE 53

G. W. BOND & BRO. MERCANTILE COMPANY

ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE AND MERCHANDISE INVENTORY

(dollars in thousands)

Year Accounts Merchandise

Receivable Inventory

1906 $19.6 $20.4

1907 26.1 24.0

1908 18.6 16.1

1909 18.6 20.3

1910 13.9 18.2

1911 18.0 17.0

1912 22.0 17.0

1913 21.6 18.1

1914 28.3 18.3

1915 25.8 22.4

At the end of 1910 G. W. Bond brought Clarence E.
Davenport down to Encino from Trinidad, Colorado, where
he had operated the Forbes Wool Company scouring mill
since about 1903. The exact role that Davenport was to play
is not clear on the record now. That it must have been a diffi-
cult one is implicit in the fact that he was to be paid by G. W.
Bond personally rather than by the company. His agreement
with the elder Bond provided that he would receive $300 per
year plus a one-half interest in all the undivided profits which
accrued personally to G. W. Bond after December 31, 1910. 38
Davenport was an old and trusted employee of the Bonds and
knew a great deal about the sheep and wool business, but just
why G. W. Bond felt it necessary to make this arrangement
is somewhat of a mystery. The Bonds had a great deal of
confidence in Dillon at that time, and in 1910 the sheep busi-

36. Ibid.

37. Letter Book No. 53, June 30, 1914, p. 171.

38. Records, loc. cit.

FRANK BOND 343

ness had turned upward from its slump in the previous year.
No friction between George Bond and R. C. Dillon is known
to have existed as early as 1910, and it is quite possible that
the difficulty which developed later was keyed to Davenport's
arrival with an important financial tie to the elder stock-
holder. At any rate, the relationship between Dillon and
Davenport must have at least been taut, and it is observed
that when Dillon bought his 6,333 shares of stock in January
of 1917, Davenport also acquired 4,000 shares which he held
until 1921 when his holdings were reduced to one share. 39
Serious strife in the organization first became apparent
early in 1914. By July of that year trouble between George
Bond and Dillon had reached the point where Frank Bond, in
an effort to mitigate the misunderstanding, suggested that
George Bond and Dillon have a face-to-face talk. 40 The ques-
tion of selling the business arose in this connection, and it is
difficult to tell whether the friction between the elder Bond
and the Encino manager was the cause or the effect of the
former's desire to "pull out" of Encino. Nor was everything
always perfectly smooth between Dillon and Frank Bond. In
June, Bond offered Dillon $3.50 for his ewes and the latter
agreed by wire to sell at that price. After Bond had com-
mitted himself to dispose of the sheep, Dillon jumped the
price to $3.75 and thus placed Frank Bond in a most embar-
rassing position. He was chagrined, of course, but felt that
Andy Wiest had forced Dillon to do it. 41 In spite of such an-
noyances Frank wrote his brother only a month after the
above incident in words that convey no trace of rancor but
rather express confidence and trust :

[Dillon] is just as good a man now as he was any time since
he joined us, so if he wants to stay on why should he not do as
well as he has done? I am certainly willing to risk my money
with him, if he wants to stay on. 42

George Bond was very much in favor of selling out at
Encino, and Frank Bond wrote : "I am in favor of selling the

39. Stock Certificate Book, loc. cit.

40. Letter Book No. 53, July 6, 1914, p. 266 ; ibid., July 10, 1914, p. 320.

41. Ibid., June 19, 1914, p. 58.

42. Letter Book No. 53, July 1, 1914, p. 217.

344 NEW MEXICO HISTORICAL REVIEW

Encino store. It is too uncertain, somewhat like dry farm-
ing." 43 However, the matter was left largely up to Dillon who
indicated that he wanted to keep the Encino store going.
Although Frank had written on June 30 that he was in favor
of selling out, by July 10 he had decided that he did not want
to sell, and just a week later he even suggested that it would
please Dillon to change the name of G. W. Bond & Bro. Mer-
cantile Company to the Bond-Dillon Mercantile Company. 44
However, nothing ever came of this suggestion directly, 45 and
the Encino firm never changed its name.

Since Frank and George were equal partners in both the
Encino and Espanola stores, it had made little difference
during the early years of the business whether the sheep and
wool at Encino were on the Espanola or Encino books. There-
fore, all the sheep and wool that were handled at Encino
before 1908 were carried on the G. W. Bond & Bro. books at
Espanola. Dillon was felt to be "alright on both of these out-
side items," 46 and so after George returned to Trinidad and
Dillon took over, the sheep and wool accounts were carried on
the Encino books.

The investment in sheep after it was transferred from
Espanola to Encino is presented in Table 54, and the balances
reflect a reversal of the trend expected in 1909 when it was
generally considered that the sheep business in that area
would decline sharply. 47 In 1915 the gross profit from sheep
amounted to $10,500 and represented almost one-third of the
$35,000 gross profit on operations for that year. 48

During the period under examination, sheep feeding oper-
ations were not carried on to any extent by the Encino store,
and the accounts for 1914 and 1915 reflected a balance in the
sheep feeding account of less than $30. Feeding activities
were discussed, however, late in 1914. 49 The Encino store did
have an interest in the Scott and Russell feeding accounts in

43. Ibid., June 30, 1914, p. 171.

44. Ibid., July 2, 1914, p. 219 ; ibid., July 10, 1914, p. 820 ; ibid., July 17, 1914, p. 382.

45. A Bond-Dillon Company was organized in Albuquerque some years later, but it
was separate from the Encino business.

46. Letter of G. W. Bond to Frank Bond, January 4, 1908, Bond Papers, tee. ctt.

47. Letter of G. W. Bond to Frank Bond, January 1, 1910, Bond Papers, tec. ctt.

48. Records, tee. ctt.

49. Letter Book No. 55, October 14, 1914, p. 486.

FRANK BOND 345

the winter of 1914-1915 ; 50 the former producing a profit in
the spring of 1915 amounting to $1,910.30, 51 and the latter
showing a profit of $1,164.63, 52 or a total of $3,074.76 from
the two sheep feeding accounts. The company showed a
profit on feeding operations for that year of $2,604.65, or
$470.11 less than the total gross amount realized, so this may
have been the Encino store's investment in the feeding ac-
count for that year. 53

TABLE 54

G. W. BOND & BRO. MERCANTILE COMPANY SHEEP

INVESTMENT
(dollars in thousands)

Year Amount Sheep

1908 $11.4

1909 .0 1,434 *

1910 15.8

1911 14.6 7,596

1912 28.8

1913 26.6

1914 34.2 12,861 c

1915 41.6 14,392'

Data not available for years not shown.

b Sheep on hand, but not picked up in inventory.

On rent.

The only untoward event that transpired at Encino was
a fire in 1914. In June of that year Frank Bond wrote to
Dillon expressing his regrets and advising him to carry full
insurance. However, the matter was never mentioned again
nor is there any evidence of a fire loss on the financial state-
ments. It was therefore in all probability a minor fire, and
due to the fact that it happened just shortly after the major
fire of 1914 in Espanola, the concern that it might otherwise
have caused was all but lost in the larger misfortune. 54

50. Letter Book No. 56, December 5, 1914, p. 228.
61. Letter Book No. 58, June 1, 1915, p. 358.

52. Letter Book No. 57, April 23, 1915, p. 630.

53. Records, loc. tit.

54. Letter Book No. 5S, June 23, 1914, p. 99.

Notes and Documents

THE EURINDIAN : A SUBJECT FOR SOUTHWESTERN STUDIES

By Jack D. Forbes

Most studies dealing with the Southwestern region have condsidered
two major ethnic types, the Caucasian (Spanish or Anglo-American)
and the Indian. It is my opinion, however, that a third type can be dis-
tinguished and profitably dealt with by the historian, anthropologist and
sociologist. I have reference to the eurindian, i.e., persons of mixed
Indian-caucasion ancestry.

Eurindians have been very important in the history of the South-
west, as in other areas of the Americas, and it would seem worthwhile
for scholars to undertake studies dealing with this hybrid ethnic group.
Much of the post-conquest history of New Mexico and California, for
example, revolves around the activities of the eurindian, rather than
either Caucasians or Indians. To be specific, relatively few Caucasian
Spanish subjects ever went to the northern frontier of New Spain. The
vast majority of Spanish-speaking settlers and soldiers in this area
were non-caucasians, i.e., eurindians, Indians, afro-urindians eurafri-
cans (negro-caucasian hybrids) or negroes, with the eurindian gradu-
ally predominating. Furthermore, the virtual absence of Caucasian
women on the frontier meant that those Caucasian men who settled in
the area produced eurindian progeny. Thus in New Mexico the His-
panic population became largely eurindian with only the upper military
officials and the clergy being of pure Caucasian stock. Still further,
many of the indigenous groups of the region became partially eurindian
with the acquisition of Caucasian genes due to miscegenation and the
adoption of captured Hispano-eurindians (as with the Apache especi-
ally).

The eurindian was especially important in pre-1848 California be-
cause over ten times as many men as women migrated from Mexico to
that area, and the majority of these migrants were apparently non-
caucasian to begin with. In California the Spanish-speaking population
(gente de razo) increased rapidly due to miscegenation with California
Indian women. Thus the Hispanic population of the area became in-
creasingly eurindian (and Indian), with possibly only the upper strata
being Caucasian. During the Mexican period (1822-1847) many or most
of the governors and provincial leaders were eurindians of one shade
or another.

Thus when one speaks of the Hispano-Mexican era in the Southwest
one is speaking of a period initially led by Caucasians but in which the
eurindian always was a essential element. By the Mexican period lighter-
skinned eurindians had definitely achieved a position of leadership.

346

NOTES AND DOCUMENTS 347

Since 1848 the eurindian has continued in importance as witnessed
by the following items : (1 ) Many of the fur trappers, traders and guides
who opened up the Southwest were eurindians. Examples, are Jean B.
Charbonneau, Pauline Weaver, Antoine Leroux, and Jose Jessum. (2)
The indigenous tribes of the region have become increasingly eurindian.
Thus a majority of the California Indians are actually eurindian today.
(3) Many eurindians have been at least partially absorbed into the
Caucasian community, with a resultant dispersal of Indian genes. (4)
There are several millions of Mexican-Americans in the area and they
are largely eurindian. It would seem that this group can best be under-
stood in terms of their racially hybrid character.

It should be clear that the eurindian forms an important ethnic type
in the Southwest and is worthy of investigation. Undoubtedly many
problems can be defined which, upon solution, will shed much light
upon the effects, culturally, historically, and genetically, of hybridiza-
tion. Likewise, significant eurindian-Indian and eurindian-caucasian
contact studies can be made. It is hoped that this brief article will help
to stimulate interest in the subject.

San Fernando Sate College JACK D. FORBES

KILLED BY THE KID

The killing of F. P. Cahill is the first authenticated mur-
der attributable to Billy the Kid. It is, of course, possible that
Cahill had been preceded by the Chinese gambler allegedly
shot at Globe, but at the very best the story of the latter's
demise comes to us secondhand, 1 and so far no one has pre-
sented any contemporary evidence to substantiate its right
to be accepted as anything but folklore. Regardless of
whether Cahill was number one or number two on the Kid's
list, has an unimpeachable claim on our interest: he was
the only one of Billy's victims who left behind him his version
of the fatal meeting.

Cahill, who appears to have been a blacksmith familiarly
known as "Windy," was mortally wounded in George Adkin's
saloon at Camp Grant, Arizona, on August 17, 1877. The ar-
ticle in which the Tucson Arizona Citizen reported the affair
was disinterred some years ago. 2 Very recently, however, the
writer was browsing through some microfilm copies of the

1. Rasch, Philip J., The Twenty-One Men He Put Bullets Through. New Mexico Folk-
lore Record, IX :8-14, 1955.

2. Rasch, Philip J. and R. N. Mullin, Dim Trails : The Pursuit of the McCarty Family.
New Mexico Folklore Record, VIII :6-ll, 1954.

348 NEW MEXICO HISTORICAL REVIEW

Tucson Arizona Weekly Star. To his pleased surprise his eye
suddenly lit on an item which contained Cahill's death bed
account of the encounter. The article is reproduced in full
below.

Frank P. Cahill was shot by Henry Antrem alias Kid, at
Camp Grant on the 17th, and died on the 18th. The following
are the dying words of the deceased :

I, Frank P. Cahill, being convinced that I am about to die,
do make the following as my final statement: My name is
Frank P. Cahill ; I was born in the county and town of Galway,
Ireland: yesterday, Aug. 17th 1877, I had some trouble with
Henry Antrem, otherwise known as Kid, during which he shot

me. I had called him a pimp, and he called me a s of a

b ; we then took hold of each other; I did not hit him, I

think ; saw him go for his pistol, and tried to get hold of it, but
could not and he shot me in the belly; I have a sister named
Margaret Flannigan living at East Cambridge, Miss., and an-
other named Kate Conden, living in San Francisco. 3

PHILIP J. RASCH

U. S. Indian School
Thoreau, New Mex.
December 14, 1953

Mr. R. C. Pettingell, Ed.

Sun Trails,

Albuquerque, N. M.

Dear Mr. Pettingell :

Enclosed are the spot, the write up, and the photo that I promised
you. Will you please return the photo after you have finished with it?

Well Christmas is almost here. I have two little girls and they are
very anxious. I haven't worked since my operation & sometimes the
sledding is pretty rough. I wonder if you couldn't make an exception and
pay me for the rest of this job? I would like to get a few presents for
the girls and my wife. She keeps us in groceries but there's never any
thing extra & I thought that at Christmas we ought to have a little
extra. I know of no one I can ask except you and I hope you can do this
for me. Let me hear from you, I am,

Sincerely,

Paul F. E. Goodbear

P.S. Magazine called "Real" has article entitled, "The Fighting
Cheyennes." Got my copy at cigar store south of Hilton Hotel. Article
seems to be pretty accurate.

8. Tucson Arizona Weekly Star, August 23, 1877.

NOTES AND DOCUMENTS 349

A POINT OF VIEW

"En venticino de Diciembre de mil ochocientos cuarenta y dos en el
camposanto de esta Parroquia de la Villa de Mier. Yo El Presbitero
Don. Jose Luis Gonzaga Garcia Cure. [Cura Interino] Interino de dicha
Villa. Di sepultura Eclesiastica en restura [? indistinct] menor al
cuerpo de Don Jacinto Carrillo adulto no he [? se] confeso por haber
estado ausente el Padre por la guerra de los godames americanos, fue
casado con Dona Carmen . . . ." Church of La Purisima Concepcion de
Ciudad Mier, Tamaulipas, Mexico.

Book Reviews

Kirby Benedict, Frontier Federal Judge. By Aurora Hunt.
Glendale, Calif. : Arthur H. Clark Company. Illustrations,
map, index, bibliography, $9.00.

In 1951, Miss Aurora Hunt, of Whittier, Cal., a diligent
researcher and capable writer, wrote The Army of the Pa-
cific, detailing its operations in California, Arizona and New
Mexico, during the years 1860 and 1866. In 1958 Miss Hunt
wrote Major General James H. Carleton, likewise an impor-
tant contribution to Southwestern history. As a companion
piece to The Army and the Pacific, and Carleton, Miss Hunt
has now written Kirby Benedict, Frontier Federal Judge. For
many years Judge Benedict has been a shadowy figure of
Territorial days in New Mexico, remembered principally be-
cause of the famous sentence he is reputed to have imposed
upon unfortunate Jose Maria Martin, a convicted murderer.

Born in Connecticut in 1810, according to Miss Hunt's
book, Benedict was appointed an Associate Justice of the
Territorial Court of New Mexico by President Pierce in 1853.
Benedict traveled as a young man from New England
through Ohio to Mississippi, where he studied law and was
admitted to the bar. He retraced his steps to Illinois, in which
state he became a member of the legislature, and rode circuit
with Abraham Lincoln. Benedict traveled in New Mexico
at times with W. W. H. Davis, United States Attorney in the
fifties, who wrote El Gringo and Spanish Conquest of New
Mexico, two important books about Territorial days.

Chief Justice of the Supreme Court in New Mexico dur-
ing the Civil War years, Benedict had ample opportunity to
know and observe military and political situations at first
hand. He kept a journal and wrote articles for newspapers
occasionally, sometimes using a non de plume. He was a pro-
lific letter writer. He freely communicated his thoughts by
means of the spoken word to friend and foe, which at times
got him into trouble. In his latter years Kirby Benedict ap-

350

BOOK REVIEWS 351

parently failed to develop an immunity to the after effects of
excessive consumption of alcoholic beverages. As a result, he
became involved in needless quarrels with bench and bar. He
died in Santa Fe on Feb. 27, 1874.

The twenty years Kirby Benedict spent in New Mexico,
as judge, lawyer and newspaper editor, spanned a most inter-
esting era in New Mexico's history. After Abraham Lincoln's
election to the Presidency, Kirby Benedict seemingly relied
heavily on his acquaintance and friendship with him. Re-
peated claims of influence, and continual boasting of friend-
ship with the President, contributed substantially toward
Benedict's eventual downfall. Kirby Benedict's portrait for
all New Mexicans to see has now been well painted by Miss
Hunt. From now on out there will be no need to speculate
about Kirby Benedict. Making good use of Benedict's ma-
terials and of official papers and documents in Santa Fe and
Washington, Miss Hunt has been successful in writing a most
interesting and valuable book on colorful early days in New
Mexico. Miss Hunt has written down everything that it is
necessary to know about him in order to form an appropriate
opinion about his life and times in New Mexico.

Albuquerque WILLIAM A. KELEHER

Nebraska Place-Names. By Lilian L. Fitzpatrick. Including
selections from J. T. Link's Origin of the Place-Names of
Nebraska. Edited with introduction by G. Thomas Fair-
clough. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1960.
Pp. 227. $1.50.

Isaac Taylor, that indefatigable, though often pedantic,
English philologist wrote in his now classic, Words and
Places (1865, p. 1)

Local names whether they belong to provinces, cities, and
villages, or are the designations of rivers and mountains are
never mere arbitrary sounds, devoid of meaning. They may
always be regarded as records of the past, inviting and re-
warding a careful historical interpretation.

352 NEW MEXICO HISTORICAL REVIEW

The volume being reviewed is sufficient proof of the ac-
curacy of Mr. Taylor's statement. Nebraska Place-Names
originally appeared in 1925 in the University of Nebraska
serial Studies in Language, Literature and Criticism. In addi-
tion to Miss Fitzpatrick's work, the editor decided to include
a fifty-seven page essay by John T. Link, The Origin of the
Place-Names of Nebraska, which was first published in 1933
as a Bulletin of the Nebraska Geological Survey.

The editor, in his introduction, has gently suggested that
an obvious motivation for the present edition was to offer
the works to a larger audience than was reached by the first
publication. A point well taken as we are all familiar with a
number of valuable (though oft times esoteric) works which
are buried in a University publication series, out of sight,
out of mind.

Miss Fitzpatrick limited her study to the names of Ne-
braska communities. Her material is organized in a gazetteer
fashion alphabetically by counties and then by towns within
the counties. Brief annotation is provided for each town, the
whole followed by an index which serves as an adequate
cross-reference. In the sum, the organization is direct and
easily accessible for the researcher.

Most Nebraska community names were derived from
five sources : personal names, from nearby geographical fea-
tures, from names transferred from foreign origin, Indian
names and those of "coined" origin. An intriguing, though
understandable, fact was that of the more than two hundred
names of personal derivation over seventy were those of the
"first" postmaster, with town founders and railroad officials
respectively a poor second and third choice.

Many students have and will find Miss Fitzpatrick's com-
pilation useful. We can only regret that she restricted her
subject to communities instead of also including geographical
features. In addition, it would have been helpful for non-
Nebraskans if the author had included a pronunciation guide.

John T. Link's essay differs in scope, interest and organi-
zation from Miss Fitzpatrick's work. Mr. Link was con-
cerned with the origin of geographical place-names. How-

BOOK REVIEWS 353

ever, in spite of the more ample annotation, the erratic selec-
tion plus the absence of an index will thwart all but the most
persevering of users.

It has been eighteen years since George R. Stewart first
offered a preliminary plan for a place-name study for the
entire United States, on a state by state basis. In the age
of governmental largesse and foundation grants, which have
in recent years provided funds for so many "pilot" projects,
perhaps it is not Utopian to anticipate the eventual fruition
of Stewart's survey. Until we do have such a study, the pub-
lishers of Nebraska are to be commended for making the
present work available.

Finally, the University of Nebraska Press deserves com-
mendation for the inauguration of the Bison Book series.
With the current boom in Western Americana, the future
will bode well for paperback editions of this quality and
selectivity.

Archivist, University of Wyoming GENE M. GRESSLEY

Saints in the Valleys. By Jose E. Espinosa, with a Foreword
by Fray Angelico Chavez. The University of New Mexico
Press, 1960. Bibliography. $6.50.

This work, made possible by a grant from the Ford
Foundation, is not only a study of the work of the native
New Mexico painters and sculptors of sacred images during
the 18th and 19th centuries (circa 1795 to 1860) . It embodies,
likewise, a history of New Mexico told from the point of view
of the author in his search for records of the importation and
manufacture of such images.

The recognition that folk art is a rich contribution to the
civilization of the world, having a strong appeal even to the
most sophisticated lover of art, has, in recent years, stimu-
lated a wide interest in primitive American art forms. These
range across the whole field of human living on this continent
and along the entire route of our history as colonies of Euro-
pean powers and as a nation.

354 NEW MEXICO HISTORICAL REVIEW

The objects which constitute the vast treasury of this art
are found in museums, in second hand stores, in the posses-
sion of collectors and even in the stores, churches and public
and private dwellings which were their natural habitat. They
embrace such diverse things as the signs, helmets, buckets
and engines of the volunteer firemen, the colonial doorways
of New England, and the ingenious tools of a century or more
ago. Newcomers in the field (insofar as the attention of the
world of art is concerned) are the santos, or images of the
saints, painted on wooden panels (the retablos) or carved
into statues of wood (the bultos) of the Spanish Southwest.

The author of this volume at page xii of the Preface
seems to state that their grace and elegance can only be
sensed by "those who share, even in part, the faith of those
who made them." And the author of the Foreword refers,
patronizingly it seemed to me, to scholars like E. Boyd, the
undoubted leader in their study, and even suggests that they
do not have the qualifications of Dr. Espinosa because they
are not Catholics. However that may be, the santos have, in
fact, become the property of the artistic world. Like the
religious paintings of Raphael and the great carved figures
of the Buddhist sculptors they represent more, even, than the
expression of a particular religion and have become manifes-
tations of the striving of the human spirit toward beauty,
truth, goodness and God.

There are few works of real scholarly value dealing with
the santos and this is one of them. In the first 35 pages the
author has listed, in the course of a summary of New Mexi-
can history, numerous references to the santos by observers,
historians and others. This portion is followed by a number
of plates, identified, where possible, as the work of known
makers. Chapter 5 deals with the classification and tech-
nology of the santos. Chapter 6 deals with the retablo paint-
ers and lists the twelve retablo painters who have been iden-
tified. Unfortunately, none of the published works on the
santos contain enough plates to give the reader much help
in making his own comparisons and identifying them him-
self, and this is no exception. A comprehensive exhibition of
santos, identified works of the various santeros being

BOOK REVIEWS 355

grouped together, would be a real contribution to understand-
ing of the subject. Chapter 7 on the bulto carvers is the first
separate study of this subject which I have encountered and
hence was of special interest to me. Chapter 8 deals with the
part played by the santos in New Mexican life and is one
of the most interesting. There are eight appendices, some
of considerable interest. Appendix A (perhaps the most val-
uable) deals with Christian iconography and contributes
definitions of symbols (referring to abstract qualities of the
saint, such as learning, piety, purity, etc.), attributes (ob-
jects shown with the figure or painting and related to per-
sonal history or legend), emblems (similar objects which,
standing by themselves, are symbols of the saint, but repre-
senting the concrete rather than the abstract), and types
(objects associated with Christian doctrines) . An extensive
bibliography and an index conclude the volume.

University of New Mexico J. D. ROBB

The Southwest: Old and New. By W. Eugene Hollon. New
York : Alfred A. Knopf, 1961. Pp. xvii, 487. Maps, bibliog-
raphy, illustrations, index.

Professor Hollon's history is the first general survey of
Oklahoma, Texas, New Mexico and Arizona. Barring some
weaknesses noted later, the study is well and interestingly
written, and generally accurate. The book falls into three
parts, preceded by an outline of Southwestern geography,
whose area should read 570,000 square miles, p. 21. With his
choices of regions some would quarrel, but Hollon readily
admits disagreement.

The first part of the volume surveys the pre-historic,
Spanish-Mexican period to 1848. This section is the weakest.
Navajo locations p. 30 and 31 are not correctly given. Pajanto
should read Pajarito, p. 26. The Apache ranged east and
northeast far beyond the Pecos River. Coronado passed
through Zufii, not Hopi, p. 28. The Comanche, not on the
plains when the white men arrived (p. 36) emerged from the
mountains about 1700. Unfortunately, Professor Hollon has

356 NEW MEXICO HISTORICAL REVIEW

accepted opinions, still widely current, of white men who
seized Apache lands. The chapter devoted to the Spaniards
is by far the most inadequate in the book. The author shows
himself unfamiliar with the importance Spain attached to
New Mexico, then including Arizona, founded originally as
an outpost to protect northern Mexico. Its internal history
in the seventeenth century developed a life of its own within
which the Pueblo Revolt and the Re-Conquest have an ex-
planation, but here receive no significant treatment. The
eighteenth century fares fully as badly. Although he presents
a competent survey of the approach and retreat of the French
in the Southwest, he missed the other great theme of the cen-
tury: Spanish-Indian conflicts that ranged from the Navajo
attacks upon the settlements to the clash of the Apache and
Comanche, both of whom bore down upon Texan, New Mexi-
can and north Mexican settlements. Their range of destruc-
tion was so great that the Spanish government launched a
twenty-year program of defense that had a significant bear-
ing upon the evolution of the area. All this history remains
a closed book, however, to the author, and accounts for his
isolated treatment of Kino and Garces. Because the rest of
the volume is done with such excellence, the reviewer hopes
Professor Hollon will bring, on revision, the earlier part up
to the same high standard.

The second party of the study covers roughly the nine-
teenth century. Included are a survey of American expan-
sion westward, early explorers, the growth of the western
fur and Santa Fe trade, colonization of Texas, and the trans-
fer of the Five Civilized Tribes to Oklahoma. His account of
life and culture in Texas is absorbing. The chapter surveying
the Mexican War presents the accepted and well-established
facts, i.e. those isolated from the Mexican side of the story,
of the American winning of the war and the annexation of
southwest territory completed with the Gadsden Purchase.
The simultaneous acquisition of California and the discovery
of gold there opened the way for overland trails. Here the
author shows the effect of this movement upon population
growth in the Southwest and the effort to develop communi-
cations by coaches and camels. He makes effective use of the

BOOK REVIEWS 357

struggle for communications both as a factor in Southwest-
ern development, and as an element in the sectional conflict in
the nation. His treatment of the Civil War in the Southwest
is competent, dealing- with the chief efforts of the Confed-
erates to occupy New Mexico and Arizona, and the attitude
of the Five Civilized Tribes toward the struggle. Missing is
any reference to the changing of the northern New Mexico
boundary in 1861, the evacuation of Fort Stanton, and the
efforts of the Confederate agents to win the Comanche as
allies. The nineteenth century is completed with a survey of
events leading Oklahoma, Arizona and New Mexico to state-
hood, and an account of the changing Indian. Here it should
be noted that his treatment of the Indian's relation to South-
western history is episodical. He makes no effort, nor does
anyone else for that matter, to view the Indian in relation to
the historical process in the area. He gives a good account of
the well-known facts of the reservation system and present
day condition among the Pueblos, and occasionally hints at
the rapacity of the whites in seizing Indian lands. But he falls
back upon the usual interpretation when he notes that In-
dians used agents' headquarters as feeding stations between
raids, but makes no mention of the incessant Indian plea,
principally Apache, for lands to cultivate.

Outstanding is Professor Hollon's survey of Southwest-
ern development in the twentieth century. The chapter on
Desert and Oasis pinpoints the critical importance of water
for the present and future of the area, and contains Webb's
too little known thesis of conserving water in the vast Texas
area. With the possibility of water shortage looming, Hollon
next examines the fabulous industrial boom which has con-
verted the Southwest from an agrarian, rural economy to an
urban one. Hollon is due for special praise here, also true for
his later chapters, for his detailed and extensive research.
Here he has broken new ground but his firm grip on a huge
range of data on population change, industrial statistics, and
state and national policies for the four states, enables him
to write both with absorbing interest and paint an extra-
ordinarily clear picture of the present Southwest. Following
this excellent study of the economy are two priceless chap-

358 NEW MEXICO HISTORICAL REVIEW

ters on Southwestern politics which embrace, for Texas and
Oklahoma, such characters as the Fergusons and O' Daniel in
Texas, and Murray in Oklahoma. For New Mexico he clari-
fies the patron system which Bronson Cutting dominated so
effectively. For Arizona Hollon shows that the spectacular
boom brought forward in that usually democratic state a fig-
ure, not on the low level as the howling O'Daniel of Texas for
example, but a conservative Republican trumpeting lamenta-
tions Barry Goldwater. Those interested will find in these
two chapters a sound explanation why two of these four nor-
mally democratic states voted Republican in 1960.

Turning his attention to Southwestern culture, Hollon
provides an excellent view, for the four states, of the status
of education, the contributions of the universities and their
presses, Southwestern interest in Indian art and the theatre,
and the literary achievements of poets, writers and histor-
ians, with especial emphasis upon Dobie and Webb in Texas.
His final chapters on Cities and Culture bring out the factors
that have contributed to the phenomenal growth of, among
others, Albuquerque, Phoenix, Oklahoma City, Tulsa, Hous-
ton, Dallas, Fort Worth, and San Antonio. Throughout, the
contribution of the United States government in scattering
its defense plants is apparent, and plaguing these new metro-
politan areas are problems of transportation and water
supply.

With two exceptions noted below, Professor Hollon has
written an outstanding survey of the major developments in-
fluencing the history of the Southwest. The weaknesses of the
book are in this reviewer's opinion, an inadequate presenta-
tion of (1) the main lines of colonial development and the
positive contributions of Spain to the Southwest ; and (2) the
role of the Indian as a factor in the area's history up to the
end of the nineteenth century. While Professor Hollon is not
obligated to present conclusions, this reviewer believes he
would strengthen his work if he would note briefly what he
thinks are the main lines of evolution in the Southwest, and
the relations of its recent phenomenal development to the
nation as a whole.

University of Alabama ALFRED B. THOMAS

INDEX

Adobe Walls, battle (1864), 47

A Guide to ... New Mexico Land Grants,

by Diaz, rev'd., 74
Apache depredation, 5 ; see Nellie Brown

Powers, 89

Archiveque, Sostenes, 80
Armijo, Sheriff Perfecto, 80
Arms embargo, Mexico (1912), 112
Armstrong, A. F. H., "The Case of Major

Isaac Lynde," 1-35
Ashenfelter, S. M., 187
Athern, Robert G., rev., Mattes, Indians,

Infants and Infantry .... 245

Barrera, Miguel, 81

Beck, Preston Jr., 146

Benavides, Santos, 80

Bennett, H. C., 181

Bernal, Sergeant Mariano (1815), 265

Berthould, Bartholomew, 267

Big Horn, battle, 257

Billy the Kid, 80

Bond, Frank, see Frank H. Grubbs

Bonneville, Col. B. L. E., 42

Bonney, William (Billy the Kid), 80

Bookhamer, B. F., 307

Brazito, battlefield, 87

Breeden, William, 185

"British Investment and the American Min-
ing Frontier, 1860-1914," by Spence, 121-
137

Brown, Darius, 89

Brown, Fred, 89

Brown, Henry, 89

Brown, Mrs. Henry (Sally Ann), 89

Brown, Sally Ann (Mrs. Henry Brown), 89

Browne, James, 38

Burke, W. S., 182ff

Business Management (1900's), 292f

Butscher, L. C., 285

Cabra Springs, 147, 231

Cahuilla Indians, 74

Campbell, Robert, 51

Camp Nichols, 48

Canby, Col. E. R. S., 2, 44

Carleton, Capt. James H., 41

Carlisle, A., cattleman, 199

Carranza, Venustiano, rebel, 107

Carson, Lt. Col. Christopher, 45

Catron, Charles C., 315

Catron, Thomas B., 185

Cattle-sheep conflict, 198

Chapman, Major William, 44

Chavez, J. Francisco, 185ff

Cheyenne, see Paul Goodbear

Cheyenne Sun Dance, 259

Childers, W. B., 188

Chittenden, T. G., 324

Chouteau, Auguste P., 263ff

Chouteau-Demun expedition, by Ulibarri, 263

Chouteau, Peter, 267

Christiansen, Paige W., "Pascual Orozco :

Chihuahua Rebel," 97-120
Cisco Spring, 163

Ciudad Juarez, rebels (1911), 104ff
Civil War, 1-36
Clifton, Arizona, 85
Clymer, Joseph, 38
Cochran, Earl, 302
Colquhoun, James, The Early History of the

Clifton-Morenci District, 85
Connell, Walter, 288
Cook, Grove, 56

Coronado Monument, mural, 257
Cressy, Dr. Edward F., 26 note
Crilly, Lt. Francis J., biog., 13
Crittenden, Lt. Col. George B., 43
Crutchett, Isabel Powers, 96
CT Ranch, 162
Cuervo, village, 232
Curran, J. E., editor, 201

Dargan, Marion, mention, 177

Davenport, Clarence E., 323

Davenport, John, 283

Davis, George, 80

Demun, Julius, 263ff, 347

Diaz, Albert James, A Guide to the Micro-
film of Papers relating to New Mexico
Land Grants, rev'd., 74

Dillon, Richard C., 338

Doll, Charles E., 278

Dorsey, Stephen W., 179

Dun Company, R. G., 280

Duncan, Capt. Thomas, 45

Dunn, John, 327

Easton, Capt. L. C., 87

Eaton, H. S., 289

"Edmund G. Ross . . . ," by Lamar, 177-209

El Combate, newspaper, Wagonmound, 301

End of Track, by Kyner, rev'd., 252

Espanola Mercantile Company, 277

Espinosa, Jose E., Saints in the Valleys,

rev'd., 36:333
Esteros Lake, 146
Esteros Ranch, 146
Eurindian, 346

Fairview, 95

Fauntleroy, Col. Thomas T., 43

Feather, A. G., re German Jews, 87 ; letter
re Bracito, 87

Fitzpatrick, Lilian L., Nebraska Place
Names, rev'd., 851

Floersheim Mercantile Company, 322

Floyd, Troy S., rev., Sherman and Green-
leaf, Victoria/no Huerta, 246

Forbes, Jack D., rev., James, Cahuilla In-
dians, 74, 347

Forbes Wool Company, 317

Fort Barclay, 161

359

360

NEW MEXICO HISTORICAL REVIEW

Fort Butler. 169

Fort Fillmore, 2

Fort Lyon (Colorado), 46. See Fort Wise

Fort McLane, 3

"Fort Union and the Santa Fe Trail," by

Utley, 36-48

Fort Wise, 40. See Fort Lyon
Forty Years Among the Indiana, by Jones,

rev'd., 72

Fox, George W., 188
Frankenburger, F. R., 309
Freighting (1850's), 36f
Fremont's Fourth Expedition, eds., Hafen

and Hafen, rev'd., 77
Freudenthal, L. E., letters, 84
Frost, Col. Max, 179
Frost, Donald McKay, Notes on General

Ashley the Overland Trail and South

Pass, rev'd., 72

Gable, Thomas P., warden, 191

Gallegos, J. D., 138

Garland, A. H., U. S. Att. Gen., 192

Garland, Col. John, 42

Garmon, Bill, 49

Garrett, Pat., 80

Geis, F. A., 282

German Jews, notes, 84

"Geronimo, the Apache," by Powers, 89-96

Gibbs, Capt. Alfred, biog., 22 note

Gildersleeve, C. H., 186

Glanz, Rudolf, The Jews of California from
the Discovery of Gold until 1880, rev'd.,
244

Gomez, Emilio Vasquez, rebel, 109

Gonzales, George, 148

Goodbear, Paul F. E., 257, 349

Gray's Ranch, Purgatory River, 46

Greenleaf, Richard E., rev., Perrigo, Our
Spanish Southwest, 76

Greever, William S., rev., Kyner, End of
Track, 252

Gressley, Gene M., rev., Fitzpatrick, Nebras-
ka Place Names, 351

Gross, Jacob, 821

Grubbs, Frank H., "Frank Bond : Gentleman
Sheepherder of Northern New Mexico
1883-1915," 138-158, 230-243, 274-345

Guizarn^tegui, Francisco de. Chihuahua
merchant, 216ff

Gusdorf, Alexander, 325

Gusdorf, Melvin (death), 326

Hafen, LeRoy R. and Ann W. Hafen, eds.,
Fremont's Fourth Expedition, rev'd., 77

Hall, Martin Hardwick, Sibley's New Mex-
ico Campaign, rev'd., 73

Hamblett, Lee, 200

Hand, J. D., 147

Harris, Benjamin Butler, The Gila Trail:
The Texas Argonauts and the California
Gold Rush, rev'd., 250

Hazeldine, William C., 182

Hereford, Frances S. (Mrs. Sublette), 54, 59

Hereford, Thomas, 59

Hersch, Leo, 275

Heuten, J. P. Van. 819

Hewett, Dr. Edgar L., re Lew Wallace, 62

Highway improvement, 39

Hill, Milo. 311

Holbrook, Joe, Jr., 234

Hollon, W. Eugene, rev., Hafen and Hafen,
eds., Fremont's Fourth Expedition, 77

Horse thieves, 80

Horse trade, Calif.. 56

Huddleson, J. C., 318

Huerta, Victoriano, 112

Huling, E. J., 318

Huning, Franz, 182

Hunt, Aurora, Kirby Benedict, Frontier Fed-
eral Judge, rev'd., 350

Indian, art, 257f ; 74 ; see Paul Goodbear
Indians, Infants and Infantry . . . , by Mat-
tes, rev'd., 245

James, Harry C., The Cahuilla Indians,

rev'd., 74
Jews, notes, 84
Jinglebob Ranch, 171
Johnson, E. A., 281
Jones, Daniel W., Forty Years Among the

Indians, rev'd., 72
Joseph, Antonio, 186
Julian, George W., Surv. Gen., 189

Keleher, William A., rev., Hunt, Kirby
Benedict . . . , 350 ; rev., McCubbin, The
Life of John Wesley Hardin .... 78

Kelly, H. W., 319

Kirby Benedict, Frontier Federal Judge, by
Hunt, rev'd., 350

Kistler, J. A., 205

Kyner, James H., End of Track, rev'd., 252

LaFarge, Oliver, quote re Lew Wallace, 62

Lamar, Howard R., "Edmund G. Ross as
Governor of New Mexico Territory : a Re-
appraisal," 177-209 ; rev., Pearson, Max-
well Land Grant, 253

Land claims, court of, 197

Land grant, Trampas, 305

Lane, George W., Terr. Sec., 177

Laughlin, Napoleon B., 193

Leavenworth, E. S., 284

Lee, Harry F., 287

Leidesdorff, William A., 56

Leiva, Mariano, 81

"Lew Wallace's Ben Hur," by Towne, 62

Lieuwen, Edwin, rev., Quirk, The Mexican
Revolution: 19H-1S1S, 70

Living improvement (1910's), 298

Long, A. H., 231, 294

Long, Judge Elisha V., 189

Lopez, Antonio, 285

Lucero, Alfredo, 280

Lumbering, 306

Luna, Solomon F., 287

Lynde, Capt. F. Marcy, 84

Lynde, Major Isaac, 1-35

MacArthur, Archibald, company, 188

INDEX

361

McCarthy. Justin H., 292, 326

McCarthy, T. G., 326

McClure, Will, 154

McCubbin, Robert G., The Life of John Wes-
ley Hardin as Written by Himself, rev'd.,
78

McKee, Major James Cooper, surgeon, 4ff ;
Narrative of . . . Surrender . . . Fort Fill-
more .... rev'd., 73

McNally, Lt. Christopher Hely, biog., 18 note

Madero, Francisco, rebel, 104

Maes, Juanito, 80

Mail service (1850's), 41 note; military pro-
tection, 42

Major, Alexander, 38

Map, Pike's, 266, 347

Marmon, Walter G., 204

Martines, Jose Leandro, 274

Martinez, Capt. Felix, 211

Martinez, Romulo, U. S. Marshal, 189

Mattes, Merrill J., Indiana, Infanta and In-
fantry : Andrew and Elizabeth Burt on the
Frontier, rev'd., 245

Mesilla (village), 2; Times, quoted re Civil
War, 11

Mexican, rebels (1900's), 95 passim; settle-
ments (1900's), 98ff

Mexico, arms embargo (1912), 112; revolu-
tion (1911), 97

Miera, Pantaleon, 80

Military protection, 1851-1865 ; 41ff

Mills, M. W., Dist. Attor., 201

Mills, William Wallace, 3

Mining, 85 ; investments, 121 ; method, 128

Moore, Judge, 92

Moorhead, Max L., "The Presidio Supply
Problem of New Mexico in the Eighteenth
Century," 210-229

Morenci, Arizona, 85

Mountain men, 263ff

Munroe, Col. John, 37

Mural, Coronado Monument, 257 ; Hilton
Hotel (Albuquerque), 259

Narrative of . . . Surrender . . . Fort Fill-
more . . . , by McKee, rev'd., 73

Nebraska Place Names, by Fitzpatrick,
rev'd., 351

Newspapers, 177-209 passim; 301

Nicholas, Alejandro, 281

Nohl, Louis F., 274

Notes on General Ashley the Overland Trail
and South Pass, by Frost, rev'd., 72

Orozco, Pascual, Chihuahua Rebel, 97
Ortiz, Jose, merchant (1780's), 221
Ortiz y Salazar, Antonio, Terr. Treas., 192
Otero, Pedro, merchant (1700's), 211
Our Spanish Southwest, by Perrigo, rev'd.,
76

Palen, R. J., 309
Paltenghe, Alex, 140
Paltenghe, Manuel, 140
Papanaugh, 94

Parish, William J., rev., Rudolf Glanz, The
Jews of California . . . , 244

Parke, Lt. John G., 87

Partidario, 138, 142

Pasamonte, 167

"Paul 'Flying Eagle' Goodbear," by Thorn-
burgh, 257-262

Pearson, Jim Berry, The Maxwell Land
Grant, rev'd., 253

Perez, Santa Ana, Mexican rebel, 98

Perrigo, Lynn I., Our Spanish Southwest,
rev'd., 76 ; comments, 175

Pettingell, R. C., 349

Pfeiffer, Maj. Albert H., 48

Phillibert, Mountain man, 264

Pike, Zebulon, map, 266, 347

Piano, 89

Pino, Juan Estevan, 146

Pollard, C. L., 148, 282, 303

Pope, Lt. John, 39

Posha, Henry, 243

Potosi, Plan of San Luis, 99

Potter, Col. Charles S., murder, 80

Powers, Nellie Brown, "A Ride from Geron-
imo, the Apache," 89-96

Prager, W. S., 287

Prices (1915), 276

Presidial wages, 210ff

Presidio, see Max L. Moorhead

Provencher, Dumas, death, 204

Provost, Etienne, 272

Quintana, Joe, 282

Quirk, Robert F., The Mexican Revolution:
1914-1915, rev'd., 70

Race fusion, 346

Ranch, Adobe, 94 ; Double Spring, 89 ; N-Bar,
90:101, 166

Range conflict, 198

Read, Benjamin M., 281

Rebels, Mexican (1900's), 95 passim

Reeve, Frank D., rev., Diaz, A Guide to ...
New Mexico Land Grants, 74 ; rev., Frost,
Notes on General Ashley .... 72 ; rev.,
Hall, Sibley's New Mexican Campaign, 73 ;
rev., Jones, Forty Years Among the In-
dians, 72 ; rev., McKee, Narrative of . . .
Surrender . . . Fort Fillmore ... 73 ; rev.,
Winfrey et al., eds., Texas Indian Papers
1825-1843, 71

Reeves, Reuben A., 189

Renehan, A. B., 282

Reynolds, C. B., 288

Roberts, Col. Benjamin S., 9 note

Robb, J. D., rev., Espinosa, Saints in the Val-
ley, 36.333

Robinson, J. H., 330

Rodeo, 1914, 160

Ross, Gov. Edmund G., 177-209

Ross, W. A., 314

Roundup (1914), 160

Roupe, Stephen, 200

Roy, founded, 148

Roy, William and Frank, 148

Ruhlen, George, letter re Bracito, 87

Russell, H. M., 289

Russell, William H., 38

362

NEW MEXICO HISTORICAL REVIEW

Rynerson, William F., 185

Saints in the Valley by Espinosa, rev'd.,

86 :333

Saisy (Saify), John B., 272
Santa Fe trail, 36f
Santo Tomas, 5
Sargent, Ed, 285
Scheurich, Charles A., 835
Schmidt, John Justus, 138
Schnaufer, F. W., 298
Schomburg, T. A., 316
Schools, est. public, 183
Scott, W. C., 289
Seligman, Adolf, 281
Sheep, cattle conflict, 198 ; disease, 286 ; feed

lots, 141

Sherman, William L. and Richard E. Green-
leaf, Victoria.ru> Huerta: A Reappraisal,

rev'd., 246
Sibley's New Mexican Campaign, by Hall,

rev'd., 73
Smith, Fred, 49
Smith, Hank, Civil War, 19
Smith, William, 81
"Solomon Perry Sublette: Mountain Man of

the Forties," by Sunder, 49-61
Spence, Clark C., "British Investment and

the American Mining Frontier, 1860-1914,"

121-137

Springer, Frank, 201
Staab, A., 325
Stage coach (1850's), 41
Stearns, C. H., 240
Stephens, E. L., "West of the Pecos," 159-

174

Stewart, Sir William Drnmmond, 53
Stover, Elias Sleeper, 182ff
Sublette, Capt. Andrew W., 49 note
Sublette, Esther Frances, 60
Sublette, (Mrs. Frances S. Hereford), 54, 59
Sublette, Milton, 49
Sublette, Solomon, 49
Sublette, Solomon Perry, Jr., 59
Sublette, William, 49
Sublette, William Hugh, 60
Sumner, CoL Edwin V., 37
Sun Dance, Cheyenne, 259
Sunder, John E., "Solomon Perry Sublette:

Mountain Man of the Forties," 49-61

Taos Mercantile Company, 332

Texas Indian Papers 1825-1847, ed. by Win-
frey et al., rev'd., 71

The Cahuilla Indians, by James, rev'd., 74

"The Case of Major Isaac Lynde," by Arm-
strong, 1-35

The Gilo, Trail .... by Harris, rev'd., 250

The Jews of California . . . , by Glanz, rev'd.,
244

The Life of John Wesley Hardin .... by
McCubbin, rev'd., 78

The Maxwell Land Grant, by Pearson, rev'd.,

253
The Mexican Revolution: 1914-1915, by

Quirk, rev'd., 70
"The Presidio Supply Problem . . . ," by

Moorhead, 210-229
Thompson, Jesse E., schoolman, 201
Thornburgh, Luella, "Paul 'Flying Eagle'

Goodbear," 257-262
Thornton, William T., 186
Towne, Jackson E., "Lew Wallace's Ben

Hur," 62
Traders, 263ff
Trampas, land grant, 305
Transportation costs, 1780's, 217
Trappers, 49
Trimble, L. S., 187
Truchas Lumber Company, 306
True, Clara D., 283
Trujillo, Ranch, 146
Turkey Legs, Cheyenne Chief, 257
Turley, Walter G., 317

Ulibarri, George S., "The Chouteau-Demun
Expedition to New Mexico, 1815-17,"
263-273

Utley, Robert M., "Fort Union and the
Santa Fe Trail," 36-48.

Valdez, Constable Pedro, 80

Vasquez, Louis, 53

Victoriano Huerta ... by Sherman and

Greenleaf, rev'd., 246
Villa, Francisco, rebel, 100
Vincent, William A., 189
Vorenberg, Simon, 149
VS Ranch, 172

Wade, E. C., Dist. Attor., 193

Waldo, David, 38

Waldo, Judge Henry L., 186

Walett, France G., letters, 82

Walker, Joseph Reddeford, 56

Wallace, Lew, Ben Hur, 62 ; death, 67

Warren, Henry L., 195

Warshauer, Fred, 284

Webb, John J., 80

Westphall, Victor, rev., Butler, The Gila
Trail .... 250

Whirlwind, Cheyenne Chief, 257

Wiest, Andrew W., 145ff, 231

Willis, R. M., 280

Wilson, G. M., 81

Wilson, William, murderer, 200

Winfrey, Dorman H. et al., eds., Texas In-
dian Papers 1825-1843, rev'd., 71

Wolcott, Senator Edward Oliver, 82

Wolcott, Henry, 83

Zapata, Emiliano, rebel, 109

PUBLICATIONS FOR SALE

OLD SANTA Ffi. The predecessor of the Review. Published quarterly
1913-1916. The file contains a number of articles of interest and im-
portance; significant material for the historical section of any
library of Americana. Nine issues are still available, although two
of these soon will be exhausted. The nine: Vol. I, Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4;
Vol. II, Nos. 4, 5, 6; Vol. Ill, Nos. 11, 12. The available file $9.00

NEW MEXICO HISTORICAL REVIEW. Published quarterly, 1926 to date.
Files very nearly complete are available, at $4.00 per volume, or
$1.00 per issue. There are a few exceptions: several issues in short
supply are priced at $2.00 and $3.00, and are sold only in sets. Out
of print are the following: Vol. I Nos. 1, 4; Vol. XXIII Nos. 1, 2, 3.
Write for a complete listing.
Society will pay $3 each for out of print numbers in good condition.

COMPREHENSIVE INDEX for Vols. I XV $2.00

COMPREHENSIVE INDEX for Vols. XVI XXX $2.60

PUBLICATIONS IN HISTORY

Vol. I Fray Marcos de Niza's Relation, Span, and Eng.,

ed. by Percy M. Baldwin, 59 pp. (1926) $1.00

Vol. Ill New Mexico and the Great War, ed. by L. B. Bloom,

166 pp., index (1927) $1.50

Vol. V Barreiro's Ojeada sobre Nuevo Mexico (1832),

ed. by L. B. Bloom, 60 pp., ill. (1928) $5.00

Vol. XIV Albert Franklin Banta: Arizona Pioneer, ed. by

Frank D. Reeve, 143 pp., ill., index (1953) $2.25

Vol. XV Bishop Tamaron's Visitation of New Mexico, 1760,

ed. by Eleanor B. Adams, 112 pp., ill., index (1954) $2.50

Address orders to

Historical Society of New Mexico
P. 0. Box 1727
Santa Fe, New Mexico